Summary: <p>Upper GI bleeds are common, and they’re messy. We wanted to know how good the data are for the pharmacological interventions that have become standard fare for upper GI bleeds. Turns out the data are messy too.</p> <p>In fact, because no one else would, we did our own little meta-analysis. Good news is we have a concrete answer on PPIs for upper GI bleeding. Bad news is that the news is not good. And not at all what we expected.</p> <p>FYI, check out the Rita Redberg editorial from the NY Times:</p> <p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/opinion/26redberg.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=redberg%20medicare&st=cse">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/opinion/26redberg.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=redberg%20medicare&st=cse</a></p> <p>Or even your very own David Newman's editorial in the NY Times from 2009:</p> <p><a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/the-ideology-of-health-care/">http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/the-ideology-of-health-care/</a></p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
