Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 260

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial Showing That Omeprazole Prevents Rebleeding in Patients With Bleeding Peptic Ulcer After Successful Endoscopic Therapy

Lin, Hwai-Jeng, Lo, Wen-Ching, Lee, Fa-Yauh, Perng, Chin-Lin, Tseng, Guan-Ying·1998·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A blood clot in a peptic ulcer is unstable in a low pH environment. The use of omeprazole may prevent rebleeding by elevating intragastric pH in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer after hemostasis has been achieved. OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of using omeprazole and cimetidine on 24-hour intragastric pH and to determine their ability to prevent rebleeding after having achieved initial hemostasis in patients with active bleeding or nonbleeding visible vessels. METHODS: One hundred patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who had obtained initial hemostasis were enrolled in this randomized comparative trial. In the cimetidine group (n = 50), a 300-mg intravenous bolus of cimetidine was given, followed by a 1200-mg continuous infusion daily for 3 days. Thereafter, 400 mg of cimetidine was given orally twice daily for 2 months. In the omeprazole group (n = 50), a 40-mg intravenous bolus of omeprazole was given, followed by 160 mg of continuous infusion daily for 3 days. Thereafter, 20 mg of omeprazole was given orally once daily for 2 months. A pH meter was inserted in each patient's fundus under fluoroscopic guidance after the intravenous bolus of cimetidine or omeprazole had been administered. RESULTS: The stigmata of recent hemorrhage before endoscopic therapy in the omeprazole and cimetidine groups were, respectively, spurting (9 vs 12), oozing (4 vs 9), and nonbleeding visible vessel (37 vs 29) (P > .05). The duration of intragastric pH higher than 6.0 was longer in the omeprazole group (mean [+/- SD], 84.4% +/- 22.9%) than that of the cimetidine group (mean [+/- SD], 53.5% +/- 32.3%) (P < .001). Rebleeding occurred in 2 patients (4%) in the omeprazole group and in 12 patients (24%) in the cimetidine group by day 14 after enrollment (P = .004). There was a tendency for patients in the omeprazole group to require less blood transfusion (median, 0 mL; range, 0-2500 mL) than those in the cimetidine group (median, 0 mL; range, 0-5000 mL) (P = .08). The hospital stay and number of operations and mortality rate were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of omeprazole is more effective than cimetidine in increasing intragastric pH and reducing rebleeding episodes in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy. This suggests that omeprazole should be used routinely after successful endoscopic therapy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.158.1.54

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 260

Metadata

Authors
Lin, H.-J., Lo, W.-C., Lee, F.-Y., Perng, C.-L., & Tseng, G.-Y.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
1998-01-12
Volume
158
Issue
1
Pages
54
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2048086356
Cited by
260
References
0
FWCI
13.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial Showing That Omeprazole Prevents Rebleeding in Patients With Bleeding Peptic Ulcer After Successful Endoscopic Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.158.1.54
The paper
Lin, H.-J., Lo, W.-C., Lee, F.-Y., Perng, C.-L., & Tseng, G.-Y. (1998). A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial Showing That Omeprazole Prevents Rebleeding in Patients With Bleeding Peptic Ulcer After Successful Endoscopic Therapy. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.1.54

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.