In their recent meta-analysis, Wang and colleagues concluded that high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor (PPI) regimens were not superior to non–high-dose regimens for patients with recent ulcer bleeding.1 However, we consider these conclusions to be premature, possibly flawed, and potentially misleading.
Although Wang et al1 stated that they conducted their meta-analysis according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration, they graded the quality of trials according to the Jadad classification. This is contrary to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration, which discourages the use of quality scales. Rather, it proposes the assessment of risk of bias separately in a number of domains, with concealment of allocation being the most important criterion in determining overall trial quality.2 The Jadad scale does not take concealment of allocation into account. Moreover, had the totality of evidence been assessed using the approach recommended by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group,3 it would have been graded as “low-quality evidence” rather than as “7 high-quality randomized studies.” Their literature search may have been incomplete, since recent major conference proceedings were not searched. Therefore, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with great caution.
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 1
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
The Rational Clinical Examination
What Adverse Events Can Result From a Paracentesis?
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.