The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Calcium-channel blockers and risk of cancer
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have been interpreted as suggesting an increase in risk of cancer among users of calcium-channel blockers compared with users of beta-blockers. To explore this issue further, we studied a large group of hypertensive patients to investigate the relation of calcium-channel blockers and cancer. METHODS: In cohorts of users of calcium-channel blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and beta-blockers, we identified all cases of cancer diagnosed in 1995. We used a nested case-control analysis to estimate the risk of cancer among users of calcium-channel blockers and ACE inhibitors, with users of beta-blockers as a reference group. The study was based on information taken from the General Practice Research Database, and the study population was restricted to patients with at least 4 years of medical history recorded on computer. FINDINGS: The study was based on 446 cases of cancer and 1750 controls. The relative risk estimates for all cancers combined were 1.27 (95% CI 0.98-1.63) and 0.79 (0.58-1.06) for users of calcium-channel blockers and ACE inhibitors, respectively, relative to users of beta-blockers. There was little difference in risk estimates with duration of use of calcium-channel blockers of less than 1.0 year (relative risk 1.46), 1.0-3.9 years (1.26), and 4.0 years or more (1.23). INTERPRETATION: The small positive association between calcium-channel blockers and risk of cancer is unlikely to be causal since there is no increase in risk with increasing duration of calcium-channel blocker use.
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
Jick, H., Jick, S. S., & Derby, L. E. (1991) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.302.6779.766 · Cited by 839
Self-citation
Cited by
Lung Cancer and Cryptogenic Fibrosing Alveolitis: A Population-based Cohort Study
HUBBARD, R., VENN, A., LEWIS, S., & BRITTON, J. (2000) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.161.1.9906062 · Cited by 639
Validity of the General Practice Research Database
Jick, S. S., Kaye, J. A., Vasilakis‐Scaramozza, C., Rodríguez, L. A. G., Ruigómez, A., Meier, C. R., Schlienger, R. G., Black, C., & Jick, H. (2003) · Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · doi:10.1592/phco.23.5.686.32205 · Cited by 584
Self-citationUse of the UK General Practice Research Database for pharmacoepidemiology
García Rodríguez, L. A., & Pérez Gutthann, S. (1998) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.1998.00701.x · Cited by 558
Lindblad, M., Rodríguez, L. A. G., & Lagergren, J. (2005) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-004-3485-7 · Cited by 300
The incidence of cancer in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and sarcoidosis in the UK
Le Jeune, I., Gribbin, J., West, J., Smith, C., Cullinan, P., & Hubbard, R. (2007) · Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2007.07.012 · Cited by 296
Metadata
- Authors
- Jick, H., Jick, S., Derby, L. E., Vasilakis, C., Myers, M. W., & Meier, C. R.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 349
- Issue
- 9051
- Pages
- 525-528
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2054045500
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Calcium-channel blockers and risk of cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)80084-0
- The paper
- Jick, H., Jick, S., Derby, L. E., Vasilakis, C., Myers, M. W., & Meier, C. R. (1997). Calcium-channel blockers and risk of cancer. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)80084-0
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.
