Wee 2013.

Methods	Parallel‐group randomised controlled trial
Participants	Baseline characteristics Number randomised: ‐ Number analysed: ‐ Famotidine Age (median for both groups; years): 72 Number of participants at baseline (n): 61 Gender (male/female; n): ‐ Pantoprazole Age (median for both groups; years): 72 Number of participants at baseline (n): 68 Gender (male/female; n): ‐ Inclusion criteria: each patient admitted to ICU/CCM Exclusion criteria: ‐ Baseline imbalances: Both groups had similar baseline characteristics including risk factors for SRMB (2.7 vs 2.7, P = 0.50); however, the pantoprazole group had higher APACHE‐II scores (23.9 vs 20.1; :P < 0.01)
Interventions	Famotidine Dose (total/d): 40 mg Duration of treatment (days): ‐ Route: IV Intervention: famotidine 20 mg IVPB Q12H Concomitant medications: ‐ Pantoprazole Dose (total/d): 40 mg Duration of treatment (days): ‐ Route: IV Intervention: pantoprazole 40 mg IVPB QAM Concomitant medications: ‐ Adherence to regimen: ‐ Duration of trial: December 2012 to April 2013 Duration of follow‐up: until discharge
Outcomes	Outcomes sought in review and reported in trial GI bleeding Duration of ICU stay Duration of mechanical ventilation Any other adverse events Outcomes sought in review and not reported in trial Ventilator‐associated pneumonia Mortality Blood transfusion Outcomes reported in trial, but not used in review ‐
Notes	Setting: ICU/CCU, Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA, Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA Sponsorship source: ‐ Conflicts of interest: ‐ Comments: 2 conference abstracts reporting on 1 study Ethical approval: Quote: "Expedited IRB approval was granted" Informed consent: Quote: "Informed consent was not required" Sample size calculation: ‐ Clinical trials registration: ‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Randomized" Comment: not enough details reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no information reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no information on blinding reported. Lack of blinding is unlikely to introduce bias to outcome measures and outcomes
Blinding (detection bias) Clinically important upper GI bleeding	Unclear risk	Comment: not enough details described
Blinding (detection bias) Nosocomial pneumonia	Unclear risk	Comment: Study did not address this outcome
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Adverse reactions of interventions	Unclear risk	Comment: no information on blinding of outcome assessors reported. Lack of blinding might potentially introduce bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: conference abstracts. Not enough information reported to assess incomplete outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: Secondary outcomes listed in the Methods sections of the two abstracts differ slightly. Not enough information reported to assess selective outcome reporting
Other bias	Unclear risk	Comment: not enough information reported to assess other sources of bias