Stoehr 2006.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Baseline characteristics Number randomised: 30 participants Number analysed: 30 participants Sucralfate Age (years; mean (SD)): ‐ (‐) Number of participants (n): 15 Gender (male/female; n): 7/8 Ranitidine Age (years; mean (SD)): ‐ (‐) Number of participants (n): 15 Gender (male/female; n): 8/6 Inclusion criteria Intact renal function Requiring intensive care management and mechanical ventilation Showing significantly increased risk of stress ulcer complications Exclusion criteria Age < 18 years Pregnancy Previous duodenal or gastric surgery History of gastric ulcers, active upper gastrointestinal bleeding, or pneumonia; therapy with H2 receptor antagonists, antacids, omeprazole, pirenzepine, or sucralfate within the last year Treatment with non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs or coumarin within the last 7 days Primary coagulation disorders Ventilation expected to last less than 3 days Baseline characteristics: Quote: "The study sample was homogeneous in terms of age and sex distribution, duration of treatment, severity of illness, inclusion criteria, and basic intensive care regimens"
Interventions	Sucralfate Dose (total/d): 6 g Duration of treatment (days): ‐ Route: IG tube Intervention: 1 g 6 times daily by stomach tube Concomitant medications: Enteral feeding was given to 50 participants Ranitidine Dose (total/d): 200 mg Duration of treatment (days): ‐ Route: IV Intervention: ranitidine (200 mg/d) by continuous intravenous infusion Adherence to regimen: ‐ Duration of trial: ‐ Duration of follow‐up: ‐
Outcomes	Outcomes sought in review and reported in trial ‐ Outcomes sought but not reported in trial Upper GI bleeding VAP All‐cause mortality in hospital Duration of ICU stay Duration of intubation Participants requiring blood transfusions Units of blood transfused Outcomes reported but not used in review Aluminium content in nutrition solution Aluminium intake Serum aluminium levels Renal aluminium excretion
Notes	Setting: Surgical ICUs at a university hospital in Germany Source of funding: ‐ Ethics approval: Quote: "The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Düsseldorf" Informed consent: ‐ Clinical trials registration: ‐ Sample size calculation: ‐ Additonal notes: ‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no information reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no information reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: no information reported
Blinding (detection bias) Clinically important upper GI bleeding	Unclear risk	Comment: no information reported
Blinding (detection bias) Nosocomial pneumonia	Unclear risk	Comment: This was not an outcome of the study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Adverse reactions of interventions	Unclear risk	Comment: This was not an outcome of the study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: All participants randomised were included in the analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: All outcomes described in the Methods section were included in the Results section
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no other source of bias suspected. Source of funding unclear