Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country
Choose language: English

Mostly true Scientifically well supported Certainty of evidence: moderate provisional C-PPI-11

PPIs are widely prescribed without a real indication (for example by doctors of other specialties to 'protect the stomach') and are now sold freely.

In short: Largely correct: PPIs are used by about a quarter of adults in many countries, often longer and at higher doses than needed, and guidelines call for regular review and deprescribing; however, 'stomach protection' is justified for people at high risk of ulcer bleeding.
Conclusion: Largely correct: PPIs are overused and should be reviewed, though some 'protective' use is justified.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. Scientific evidence in detail
  4. In plain language
  5. Studies on this claim
  6. Regional context
  7. What applies in my country?
  8. References

Original statement

دكتور بتاع العضم وبيكتب الكونترلوك صح عشان هو عارف ان ده بيمنع الحمض او سمع عنه ان هو دو بيعالج الارتجاع وبيحمي المعده حسب وجهه نظره

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

PPIs are widely prescribed without a real indication (for example by doctors of other specialties to 'protect the stomach') and are now sold freely.

Origin

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
الحلقة الثالثة من بودكاست #بدون_إثـــــــارة_جدل مع الدكتور ضياء العوضي (Open source)
Published
7 December 2024
Timestamp
0:02:23 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Attribution uncertainty
Machine-generated or CC transcript of a live stream; wording may contain transcription errors; context is conversational.
Claimed mechanism

Routine 'gastroprotection' and over-the-counter availability.

Claimed health effect

Unnecessary exposure.

Population concerned

General population.

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

انا في 2004 حضرت مثبطات المناعه اللي هي النهارده برشام بقى عادي اللي هو مثبطات الحموضه الكونترولوك والنكسيام والحاجات والبيبلوك والبيبتيوك وكل اللوك ده اللي هو بينزلوها دلوقتي من غير روشته ولا اي حاجه الدوا ده 2004 ما كانش عارف يدخل البلد ولا عارف يمشي فبقوا يجولنا احنا في الرعايه شغلوه بدا وحطوه بدل الزنتاك الزنتاج ده برض حاجه شبهه بس كان اقل فعاليه لان هو ما كانش بيقفل الحمض قوي بس ومع ذلك كانوا يكتبوا في الروشي بتاعته بيجيب اضطرابات هرمونيه ما كانش حد فاهم ليه بياثر على الذكوره بيقلل الرغبه الجنسيه ده فين ده في نشط الزنتان طب ايه اختلاف الزنتاك عن الكونترلاك او عند النكسيم اهو نفس الفكره انا هقفل حمض المعده بقى يبقى الموضوع لازم تربطه لي بحاجه اقول لك لا لا اصل المولكيول ده غير ده اصل الميكانزم ده غير ده يا باشا الاند الاند ريزلت انا بقفل الحمض فسنه 2004 اما تيجي تحسبها دلوقتي 2026 شوف في ال 20 سنه 22 سنه تضاعف حالات السرطان وضعف الانتصاب وسرطانات البروستاتا

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
بودكاست قبل رمضان (Open source)
Published
17 February 2026
Timestamp
0:52:55 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)

Scientific assessment

Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.

Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

PPIs are over-prescribed.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Correct in substance: AGA 2022 notes that PPIs 'are being used increasingly for indications where their benefits are less certain' and recommends regular review of the indication and de-prescribing where none exists.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

Not every co-prescription is unjustified: in people at high risk of ulcer bleeding from NSAIDs, a PPI is recommended (AGA 2017 BPA 5).

4. What remains unclear?

No Egyptian prescribing data were reviewed.

5. Which studies support it?

AGA 2022 (I-PPI-04), Farrell 2017 (I-PPI-05).

6. Which studies contradict it?

AGA 2017 BPA 5 (I-PPI-03).

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Over-prescription of PPIs is also discussed in Germany and Europe.

8. What is known about Egypt?

No local data reviewed.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Asking 'why am I taking this and for how long?' is good practice.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Guidelines and expert reviews (AGA 2022, Farrell 2017) state that PPIs are increasingly used where benefit is uncertain and recommend regular review and de-prescribing; exact prescribing rates in Egypt were not reviewed.

Source quality

Video statement consistent with guideline concerns.

Regional transferability

Concern applies in Europe as well.

Individual exceptions

Some 'protective' prescriptions are justified (high-risk NSAID or antiplatelet users).

Regional scope of the claim
not specified
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Scientifically well supported – The claim agrees with consistent, high-quality evidence.

Research question: Are PPIs widely prescribed without a real indication (e.g., routine 'stomach protection') and sold freely?

Research question in detail (PECO)
Population
General population and patients
Intervention or exposure
PPI prescribing/dispensing
Comparison
Guideline-based indications
Geographic scope
practice-dependent (Egypt vs Europe)
Outcomes
  • Prevalence of use
  • Proportion without indication

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

What speaks against the claim?

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

Overuse is well documented; some protective use is justified in high-risk people.

Why some studies weigh more

Descriptive reviews and guidelines agree; Egyptian data are weak.

Is a causal relationship established? Not applicable Descriptive claim.

Remaining uncertainty

Egyptian prescribing and OTC data.

Justified conclusion

Largely correct.

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Not applicable.
Eating habits
Not applicable.
Origin of the food
Not applicable.
Contaminants
Not applicable.
National production conditions
Not applicable.
Legal rules
OTC availability differs: small packs for short-term use in the EU; broader availability described for Egypt (not verified with data).
Actual monitoring data
Only a pharmacist KAP survey from Egypt/Iraq (I-PPI-120); no prescription data.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check
  • NNT for routine protection – NNT about 640 (composite, not significant) and 982 (post-hoc bleeding lesion) recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
Prevalence of PPI use without indication
Starting level
low (observational studies)
Reasons for downgrading
  • indirectness (no Egyptian data)
Result
moderate

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
  • AGA (American Gastroenterological Association): AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review (Targownik LE et al., Gastroenterology 2022; I-PPI-04) (2022) · Original publication
    Best Practice Advice read verbatim in the PubMed record: regular review and documentation of the indication (BPA 1); trial of de-prescribing for all without a definitive indication (BPA 2); complicated GERD (severe erosive oesophagitis, oesophageal ulcer, peptic stricture) generally not for discontinuation (BPA 4); Barrett's oesophagus, eosinophilic oesophagitis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis generally not for de-prescribing (BPA 5); assess upper GI bleeding risk first and do not de-prescribe in high-risk patients (BPA 6-7); warn about transient rebound symptoms (BPA 8); tapering or abrupt stop both possible (BPA 9); decide on indication, not on fear of PPI-associated adverse events (BPA 10). The publisher page could not be fetched (HTTP 403).
  • NICE: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management (CG184; I-GUT-108) (2014, updated 2019) · Original publication
    Lifestyle advice (healthy eating, weight reduction, smoking cessation; avoid personal precipitants; main meal well before bed); step down PPIs to lowest effective dose or as-needed unless an underlying condition or comedication needs continuing treatment; same-day referral for dyspepsia with significant acute GI bleeding; long-term full-dose PPI after oesophageal stricture dilatation and as maintenance for severe oesophagitis; H. pylori eradication for H. pylori-positive peptic ulcer; PPI co-prescription with NSAIDs in high-risk people.
Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
Europe PMC26 October 2026("proton pump inhibitor" OR PPI OR PPIs) AND (Egypt OR Egyptian) AND (inappropriate OR overuse OR prescribing OR "self-medication" OR "over-the-counter")supporting evidence701
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:("proton pump inhibitor*") AND TITLE:(inappropriate OR overuse OR overprescri* OR "without indication") AND ("systematic review" OR "meta-analysis")supporting evidence5
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:("proton pump" OR PPI OR PPIs OR "acid suppress*") AND (TITLE:Egypt OR TITLE:Egyptian OR AFF:Egypt) AND (prescri* OR use OR utilization)supporting evidence21
Europe PMC26 October 2026("proton pump inhibitor" OR "proton pump inhibitors") AND (inappropriate OR "without indication" OR "lack of indication") AND (prevalence) AND ("Saudi" OR "Arab" OR "Middle East" OR Jordan OR Lebanon OR Egypt)supporting evidence813
PubMed efetch (record of PMID 35183361)26 October 2026efetch id=35183361 (AGA 2022 de-prescribing BPA statements); publisher page attempted via WebFetch returned HTTP 403guidelines1
Europe PMC26 October 2026TITLE:"pantoprazole" AND TITLE:"rivaroxaban" AND gastroduodenalboth directions2
Web (curl/WebFetch of guideline page)26 October 2026https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg184/chapter/1-Recommendationsguidelines1

Open questions

Egyptian prescription and OTC sales data.

How deeply was this checked?

10 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (0 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 8 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly true (moderate)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly true (moderate)
    New descriptive and trial data confirm; unchanged.
    New sources: I-PPI-103 I-PPI-106 I-PPI-119 I-PPI-120 I-PPI-102

In plain language

Doctors' organisations agree that acid blockers are often given when they are not really needed. They recommend checking regularly whether a person still needs the drug and stopping it if not. At the same time, some people, for example those at risk of stomach bleeding from painkillers, do benefit.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (8)

  • How to stop PPIs safely (AGA 2022)

    Targownik LE et al.. Gastroenterology 2022 · PMID 35183361 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.247
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Stop PPIs without a definite indication; keep them in Barrett's, severe oesophagitis and high bleeding risk; expect temporary rebound.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    De-prescribing guidance.

    How was the study done?

    Expert review.

    What was actually found?

    10 statements.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Many people can stop; some must not.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Expert opinion.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports overuse claim; contradicts universal ban and 'cannot stop'.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    Scientific details →

  • Canadian guideline for stopping PPIs

    Farrell B et al.. Can Fam Physician 2017 · PMID 28500192
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    PPIs can be reduced or stopped in many patients, but not in Barrett's, severe oesophagitis or after bleeding ulcers.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Deprescribing.

    How was the study done?

    GRADE guideline.

    What was actually found?

    Deprescribe eligible patients.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Stopping is possible.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Abstract only.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'cannot stop' and universal ban.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    Scientific details →

  • A quarter of adults take acid blockers

    Shanika LGT et al.. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2023 · PMID 37420019 · DOI 10.1007/s00228-023-03534-z
    Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Data from 23 countries suggest nearly one in four adults uses a PPI, many at high doses and for more than a year.

    About a quarter of adults use PPIs; many long-term and high-dose

    Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Describe global PPI use.

    How was the study done?

    Systematic review.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    28 million users.

    What was actually found?

    ~25% of adults; two-thirds high dose; 25% >1 year.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Many people may take PPIs longer than needed.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Heterogeneous data.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports overuse claim.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Includes Europe.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Does not measure appropriateness directly.

    Scientific details →

  • Pharmacists in Egypt and Iraq need more PPI training

    Moustafa HAM et al.. Healthcare (Basel) 2025 · PMID 40648613 · DOI 10.3390/healthcare13131588
    Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    A survey of 527 pharmacists found gaps in knowledge about when PPIs are needed and when to stop them.

    Egyptian pharmacists show knowledge gaps on indications and deprescribing

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: very low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Assess pharmacists' PPI knowledge.

    How was the study done?

    Online survey.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    527 pharmacists in Egypt and Iraq.

    What was actually found?

    Moderate knowledge; gaps on indications and deprescribing.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Advice at the pharmacy may not always follow guidelines.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Self-report; no sales data.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Weakly supports overuse claim for Egypt.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Not European.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot quantify overuse in Egypt.

    Scientific details →

  • Cutting down acid blockers: fewer pills, more symptoms for some

    Boghossian TA et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 · PMID 28301676 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD011969.pub2
    Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    In six trials of people with mild reflux, switching to as-needed PPI cut pill use by about 4 pills a week but more people had uncontrolled symptoms.

    25-70% of PPI prescriptions inappropriate (background statement)

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Assess stopping or reducing long-term PPIs.

    How was the study done?

    Cochrane review of RCTs.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    6 trials, 1758 adults.

    What was actually found?

    Fewer pills; more symptom relapse with on-demand use.

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 1.71 lack of symptom control.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Many can reduce PPIs; some will have more symptoms.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Low-quality evidence; mild GERD only.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'cannot stop', but shows stopping is not always easy.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot tell long-term effects.

    Scientific details →

  • Most people could stop unnecessary acid blockers

    Koggel LM et al.. United European Gastroenterol J 2026 · PMID 42894466 · DOI 10.1002/ueg2.70297
    Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    Among outpatients without a reason for long-term PPIs, 86% using an app and 64% using a leaflet had stopped after 2 months.

    Inappropriate PPI use common in hospital outpatients

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Help people stop unneeded PPIs.

    How was the study done?

    Randomised trial, app vs brochure.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    163 Dutch outpatients.

    What was actually found?

    86% vs 64% stopped; few side effects.

    How large was the observed effect?

    RR 1.34 (1.11-1.61).

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Stopping is usually possible with good information.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Short follow-up; self-report.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'cannot stop'.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Directly applicable.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot tell how many restart later.

    Scientific details →

  • Routine acid blocker gave small benefit in low-risk heart patients

    Moayyedi P et al.. Gastroenterology 2019 · PMID 31054846 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.04.041
    Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    In 17,598 heart patients on aspirin or a blood thinner, pantoprazole halved bleeding from stomach lesions but did not reduce all stomach problems combined; about 1000 needed treatment to prevent one bleed.

    Routine PPI in low-risk antithrombotic users: no reduction of composite GI events, NNT ~1000 for bleeding

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test routine PPI in heart patients on blood thinners.

    How was the study done?

    Double-blind RCT.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    17,598 patients.

    What was actually found?

    No effect on composite; fewer bleeding lesions.

    How large was the observed effect?

    HR 0.88 composite; 0.52 bleeding lesions.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Benefit depends on bleeding risk; low-risk people gain little.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Low event rates.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports reviewing 'protective' PPIs, contradicts a universal ban.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applies to Europe.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Not about high-risk patients with prior bleeding.

    Scientific details →

  • UK guideline on heartburn and indigestion

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guideline CG184 2014 (last updated 18 October 2019)
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    NICE advises lifestyle changes and the lowest effective dose of acid blockers, but long-term full-dose treatment for severe inflammation or a narrowed gullet.

    Step down to lowest dose / as-needed use

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Guide care of reflux and indigestion.

    How was the study done?

    National guideline.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Adults in England.

    What was actually found?

    Lifestyle first; step down PPIs; keep PPIs for stricture/severe oesophagitis; eradicate H. pylori in ulcers.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Diet matters, but some people need acid blockers long term.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Older evidence base for some statements.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts a blanket ban on acid blockers.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applies directly to Europe.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Not an evidence synthesis for each claim.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (0)

No studies in this group.

Studies with mixed or unclear results (2)

  • AGA advice on long-term PPIs

    Freedberg DE et al.. Gastroenterology 2017 · PMID 28257716 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.031
    Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    PPIs are justified for defined indications; risks do not require routine monitoring.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Risk–benefit guidance.

    How was the study done?

    Expert review.

    What was actually found?

    10 best practice statements.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Use for real indications at lowest dose.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Expert opinion.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Mixed: supports indication-based use.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applicable.

    Scientific details →

  • Acid blockers prevent bleeding ulcers in trials

    Scally B et al.. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018 · PMID 29475806 · DOI 10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30037-2
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Across 849 randomised trials, acid-suppressing drugs, especially PPIs, strongly reduced ulcers and ulcer bleeding.

    Some 'stomach protection' is evidence-based, in people at risk

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Summarise all trials of stomach-protecting drugs.

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of 849 RCTs.

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    142,485 participants.

    What was actually found?

    Ulcers and bleeding fell markedly; deaths not significantly.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Bleeding OR 0.40 overall; PPI 0.21.

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    For people at risk, PPIs prevent dangerous bleeding.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Many small, short trials.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts a universal ban on acid blockers.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applies everywhere.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Does not show everyone benefits; low-risk users gain little.

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Over-prescription of PPIs is also discussed in Germany and Europe.

Egypt

No local data reviewed.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly true Largely correct: PPIs are overused and should be reviewed, though some 'protective' use is justified.

This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.

References

  1. AGA Clinical Practice Update on De-Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review.. Targownik LE et al.. Gastroenterology 2022 · PMID 35183361 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.247
  2. Deprescribing proton pump inhibitors: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline.. Farrell B et al.. Can Fam Physician 2017 · PMID 28500192
  3. Proton pump inhibitor use: systematic review of global trends and practices.. Shanika LGT et al.. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2023 · PMID 37420019 · DOI 10.1007/s00228-023-03534-z
  4. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Community Pharmacists Regarding Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) Use: A Cross-Sectional Study.. Moustafa HAM et al.. Healthcare (Basel) 2025 · PMID 40648613 · DOI 10.3390/healthcare13131588
  5. Deprescribing versus continuation of chronic proton pump inhibitor use in adults.. Boghossian TA et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 · PMID 28301676 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD011969.pub2
  6. An App-Based Proton Pump Inhibitor Discontinuation Tool: A Multicentre, Open-Label, Randomised Superiority Trial.. Koggel LM et al.. United European Gastroenterol J 2026 · PMID 42894466 · DOI 10.1002/ueg2.70297
  7. Pantoprazole to Prevent Gastroduodenal Events in Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban and/or Aspirin in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.. Moayyedi P et al.. Gastroenterology 2019 · PMID 31054846 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.04.041
  8. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management (NICE guideline CG184). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guideline CG184 2014 (last updated 18 October 2019)
  9. The Risks and Benefits of Long-term Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors: Expert Review and Best Practice Advice From the American Gastroenterological Association.. Freedberg DE et al.. Gastroenterology 2017 · PMID 28257716 · DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.031
  10. Effects of gastroprotectant drugs for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and its complications: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.. Scally B et al.. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018 · PMID 29475806 · DOI 10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30037-2

← Back to overview