Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 381

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of omeprazole in functional dyspepsia: double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trials (the Bond and Opera studies)

Open access
Talley, Meineche‐Schmidt, Paré, Duckworth, Räisänen, Pap, Kordecki, Schmid·1998·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of H 2‐receptor antagonists in functional dyspepsia is equivocal and the therapeutic place of proton pump inhibitors in functional dyspepsia is unknown. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of proton pump inhibitor therapy in functional dyspepsia. Methods: Patients (n = 1262) with a clinical diagnosis of functional dyspepsia (persistent or recurrent epigastric pain or discomfort for at least 1 month and a normal upper gastrointestinal endoscopy) were randomized to receive omeprazole 20 mg, 10 mg or identical placebo, for 4 weeks. Symptoms were assessed using validated measures. Helicobacter pylori status was determined pre‐entry by a 13 C‐urea breath test. Results: On an intention‐to‐treat analysis (n=1248), complete symptom relief was observed in 38% on omeprazole 20 mg, compared with 36% on omeprazole 10 mg and 28% on placebo (P = 0.002 and 0.02, respectively). Among those with ulcer‐like and reflux‐like dyspepsia, complete symptom relief was achieved in 40% and 54% on omeprazole 20 mg, and 35% and 45% on omeprazole 10 mg, respectively, compared with 27% and 23% on placebo (all P < 0.05, except omeprazole 10 mg in ulcer‐like dyspepsia, P = 0.08). There was no significant benefit of omeprazole over placebo in dysmotility‐like dyspepsia. Symptom relief was similar in H. pylori‐positive and negative cases. Conclusions: Omeprazole is modestly superior to placebo in functional dyspepsia at standard (20 mg) and low doses (10 mg) but not in patients with dysmotility‐like dyspepsia.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2036.1998.00410.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 381

Metadata

Authors
Talley, Meineche‐Schmidt, Paré, Duckworth, Räisänen, Pap, Kordecki, & Schmid
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-11
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
1055-1065
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
OpenAlex
W2083909172
Cited by
381
References
2
FWCI
24.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Efficacy of omeprazole in functional dyspepsia: double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trials (the Bond and Opera studies). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2036.1998.00410.x
The paper
Talley, Meineche‐Schmidt, Paré, Duckworth, Räisänen, Pap, Kordecki, & Schmid. (1998). Efficacy of omeprazole in functional dyspepsia: double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trials (the Bond and Opera studies). Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2036.1998.00410.x

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.