Cited by 64Gastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsDental Erosion and TreatmentEsophageal and GI Pathology

Meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing standard clinical doses of omeprazole and lansoprazole in erosive oesophagitis

Open access
Sharma, V. K., Leontiadis, G. I., Howden, C. W.·2001·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Background: Omeprazole and lansoprazole are used to treat erosive oesophagitis in the respective daily doses of 20 and 30 mg. Aim: To investigate, by meta‐analysis, whether treatment with lansoprazole 30 mg increases erosive oesophagitis healing rates over omeprazole 20 mg. Methods: We searched for randomized, double‐blind trials comparing omeprazole 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg in endoscopically diagnosed erosive oesophagitis. After assessing for homogeneity, non‐heterogeneous trials were combined and pooled healing rates derived. We calculated the relative benefit increase, absolute benefit increase and number needed to treat. Results: Six trials without significant heterogeneity met predetermined inclusion criteria. By per protocol analysis, pooled healing rates for omeprazole 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg were, respectively, 74.7% and 77.7% after 4 weeks and 87.0% and 88.7% after 8 weeks. The corresponding figures by intention‐to‐treat analysis were 70.8% and 72.7% after 4 weeks and 81.8% and 83.3% after 8 weeks. In each analysis the absolute benefit increase for lansoprazole was small and its 95% confidence interval encompassed zero. Conclusion: Lansoprazole 30 mg produces healing rates in erosive oesophagitis that are not statistically significantly different to those of omeprazole 20 mg.

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.1365-2036.2001.00904.x

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PPIs are the first-choice treatment for acid-related disorders such as bleeding, peptic ulcers, gastroesophageal reflux, erosive esophagitis (ERD) and certain dyspepsia subtypes.

    “PPIs are the first-choice treatment for acid-related disorders such as bleeding, peptic ulcers, gastroesophageal reflux, erosive esophagitis (ERD) and certain dyspepsia subtypes[2-5].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 5 Anonymous. Glossary. ACP Journal Club 2000; 133: A22.
  2. Corallo J, Vicari F, Forestier S, Joubert M. Lansoprazole in the acute treatment of re¯ux esophagitis. Gastroenterology 1993; 104: A58(Abstract).
  3. Petite JP, et Groupe Multicentrique. Ef®cacte  compare Âe du lansoprazole et de l'ome Âprazole dans le traiement 3 de l¢ oeso- phagite peptique. Me Âd Chir Dig 1995; 24: 291±4.
  4. Pilotto A, Franceschi M, Leandro G, Di Mario F, Valerio G. Comparison of omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole in the treatment of elderly patients with esophagitis. Gastro- enterology 1999; 116: A283(Abstract).
  5. Vcev A, Stimac D, Veeva A, et al. Lansoprazole versus ome- prazole in the treatment of re¯ux esophagitis. Acta Med Croat 1997; 51: 171±4.
  6. Howden CW, Meredith PA, Forrest JAH, Reid JL. Oral pharmcokinetics of omeprazole. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1984; 26: 641±3.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharma, V. K., Leontiadis, G. I., & Howden, C. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
  • G. Papanikolaou General Hospital (GR)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Howden, C. W.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-02-05
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
227-231
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
OpenAlex
W1984465775
Cited by
64
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental Erosion and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Esophageal and GI Pathology
Keywords
erosive esophagitis, omeprazole, lansoprazole, proton pump inhibitors, drug efficacy comparison, number needed to treat
MeSH terms
Anti-Ulcer Agents, Esophagitis, Humans, Omeprazole, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, 2-Pyridinylmethylsulfinylbenzimidazoles, Lansoprazole

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