The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery vs Esomeprazole Treatment for Chronic GERD: The LOTUS Randomized Clinical Trial
Abstract
CONTEXT: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a chronic, relapsing disease with symptoms that have negative effects on daily life. Two treatment options are long-term medication or surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate optimized esomeprazole therapy vs standardized laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LARS) in patients with GERD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The LOTUS trial, a 5-year exploratory randomized, open, parallel-group trial conducted in academic hospitals in 11 European countries between October 2001 and April 2009 among 554 patients with well-established chronic GERD who initially responded to acid suppression. A total of 372 patients (esomeprazole, n = 192; LARS, n = 180) completed 5-year follow-up. Interventions Two hundred sixty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive esomeprazole, 20 to 40 mg/d, allowing for dose adjustments; 288 were randomly assigned to undergo LARS, of whom 248 actually underwent the operation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to treatment failure (for LARS, defined as need for acid suppressive therapy; for esomeprazole, inadequate symptom control after dose adjustment), expressed as estimated remission rates and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Estimated remission rates at 5 years were 92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89%-96%) in the esomeprazole group and 85% (95% CI, 81%-90%) in the LARS group (log-rank P = .048). The difference between groups was no longer statistically significant following best-case scenario modeling of the effects of study dropout. The prevalence and severity of symptoms at 5 years in the esomeprazole and LARS groups, respectively, were 16% and 8% for heartburn (P = .14), 13% and 2% for acid regurgitation (P < .001), 5% and 11% for dysphagia (P < .001), 28% and 40% for bloating (P < .001), and 40% and 57% for flatulence (P < .001). Mortality during the study was low (4 deaths in the esomeprazole group and 1 death in the LARS group) and not attributed to treatment, and the percentages of patients reporting serious adverse events were similar in the esomeprazole group (24.1%) and in the LARS group (28.6%). CONCLUSION: This multicenter clinical trial demonstrated that with contemporary antireflux therapy for GERD, either by drug-induced acid suppression with esomeprazole or by LARS, most patients achieve and remain in remission at 5 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00251927.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Long-term Proton Pump Inhibitor Therapy and Risk of Hip Fracture
Yang, Y.-X., Lewis, J. D., Epstein, S., & Metz, D. C. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.24.2947 · Cited by 1,214
Spechler, S. J., Lee, E., Ahnen, D., Goyal, R. K., Hirano, I., Ramirez, F., Raufman, J.-P., Sampliner, R., Schnell, T., Sontag, S., et al. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.18.2331 · Cited by 909
Miner, P. (2003) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/j.amjgastroenterol.2003.09.053 · Cited by 442
Esomeprazole (40 Mg) Compared With Lansoprazole (30 Mg) in The Treatment of Erosive Esophagitis
Castell, D. O., Kahrilas, P. J., Richter, J. E., Vakil, N. B., Johnson, D., Zuckerman, S., Skammer, W., & Levine, J. G. (2002) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(01)04094-1 · Cited by 436
Camilleri, M., Dubois, D., Coulie, B., Jones, M., Kahrilas, P. J., Rentz, A. M., Sonnenberg, A., Stanghellini, V., Stewart, W. F., Tack, J., et al. (2005) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s1542-3565(05)00153-9 · Cited by 384
Targownik, L. E., Lix, L. M., Leung, S., & Leslie, W. D. (2010) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2009.11.014 · Cited by 253
Kulig, M., Leodolter, A., Vieth, M. W., Schulte, E., Jaspersen, D. J., Labenz, J., Lind, T., Meyer-Sabellek, W. A., Malfertheiner, P., Stolte, M., et al. (2003) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01770.x · Cited by 249
Self-citationGralnek, I. M., Dulai, G. S., Fennerty, M. B., & Spiegel, B. M. R. (2006) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2006.09.013 · Cited by 198
Lundell, L., Attwood, S., Ell, C., Fiocca, R., Galmiche, J.-P., Hatlebakk, J., Lind, T., & Junghard, O. (2008) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2008.148833 · Cited by 196
Self-citation
Cited by
for the SIF-AIGO-FIMMG Group, Scarpignato, C., on behalf of the Italian Society of Pharmacology, T. I. A. O. H. G., Gatta, L., Zullo, A., & Blandizzi, C. (2016) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0718-z · Cited by 469
Gastroesophageal reflux disease–from reflux episodes to mucosal inflammation
Kandulski, A., & Malfertheiner, P. (2012) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2011.210 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Galmiche, J.-P., Hatlebakk, J., Attwood, S., Ell, C., Fiocca, R., Eklund, S., Långström, G., Lind, T., Lundell, L., & LOTUS Trial Collaborators, F. T.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2011-05-18
- Volume
- 305
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 1969-77
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2030314050
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 40.80
- 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: Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery vs Esomeprazole Treatment for Chronic GERD: The LOTUS Randomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2011.626
- The paper
- Galmiche, J.-P., Hatlebakk, J., Attwood, S., Ell, C., Fiocca, R., Eklund, S., Långström, G., Lind, T., Lundell, L., & LOTUS Trial Collaborators, F. T. (2011). Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery vs Esomeprazole Treatment for Chronic GERD: The LOTUS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.626
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.