Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A prospective evaluation of esophageal testing and a double-blind, randomized study of omeprazole in a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for chronic cough

Ours, T·1999·The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest an association between chronic cough and gastroesophageal reflux. Our study aims were 1) to define the prevalence of acid reflux induced cough in the general community, 2) to examine the ability of esophageal testing to identify gastroesophageal reflux related cough, and 3) to assess the utility of omeprazole in a chronic cough algorithm. METHODS: Patients with chronic cough of unknown etiology, who were mostly from the community, were evaluated. Subjects underwent a chest x-ray, methacholine challenge test, and empiric trial of postnasal drip therapy, and completed daily cough symptom diaries subjectively evaluating cough frequency and severity on a graded scale of 0-4 (combined maximum 8). After excluding other causes of cough, the remaining patients underwent esophageal and pH testing. Those testing positive were randomized to omeprazole 40 mg b.i.d. or placebo for 12 weeks. Follow-up was 1 yr. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were screened; 48 were excluded. Twenty-three patients were evaluated for gastroesophageal reflux disease; six (26%) were eventually determined to have an acid-related cough. Of these patients, 17 had a positive pH test, six (35%) of whom showed a striking improvement or resolution of their cough during omeprazole treatment which was sustained for up to 1 yr. Six had a negative pH test, none of whom responded to omeprazole therapy. No significant differences were seen between responders (n = 6) and nonresponders (n = 11) for demographic factors, baseline symptom frequency and duration, or physiological parameters (motility/pH). CONCLUSIONS: Acid-related chronic cough was present in 26% (six of 23) of patients evaluated for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Esophageal testing does not reliably identify patients with acid induced chronic cough responsive to proton pump inhibitor therapy. We suggest that the best diagnostic and therapeutic approach, after excluding asthma and postnasal drip syndrome, is empiric treatment for 2 wk with a high dose proton pump inhibitor.

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 · 10.1016/s0002-9270(99)00563-8

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Ours, T.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
1999-11
Volume
94
Issue
11
Pages
3131-3138
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1992698715
Cited by
271
References
21
FWCI
9.49
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 evaluation of esophageal testing and a double-blind, randomized study of omeprazole in a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for chronic cough. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9270(99)00563-8
The paper
Ours, T. (1999). A prospective evaluation of esophageal testing and a double-blind, randomized study of omeprazole in a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm for chronic cough. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9270(99)00563-8

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.