The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Treatment with Histamine H2Antagonists in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Implications of Randomized Trials
Abstract
Histamine H2 antagonists are widely used in treating patients with hematemesis and melena, despite the lack of reliable evidence of benefit from any of the randomized trials, considered separately. Examination of the data from all 27 available randomized trials, in which over 2500 patients were entered, suggests that treatment may reduce the rates of rebleeding, surgery, and death by about 10, 20, and 30 per cent, respectively, although these results were only marginally significant for surgery and death. Any benefit appeared to be confined to patients with bleeding gastric ulcers, but since this subgroup analysis was prompted by preliminary examination of the data in some of the individual trials reviewed here, it should be treated with particular caution. The implications of this overview are that treatment with histamine H2 antagonists appears to be moderately promising, but its effects on important end points, such as death, still need to be assessed reliably. Prevention of "only" about 20 per cent of all deaths could well be worthwhile, for the condition is common, and the treatment widely practicable. To detect such a moderate effect reliably, however, might require the randomization of 10,000 patients (or more), which would be possible only in an extremely simple multicenter collaborative trial.
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
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Self-citation
Cited by
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
Laine, L., & Peterson, W. L. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199409153311107 · Cited by 719
Lau, J. Y. W., Sung, J. J. Y., Lee, K. K. C., Yung, M.-Y., Wong, S. K. H., Wu, J. C. Y., Chan, F. K. L., Ng, E. K. W., You, J. H. S., Lee, C. W., et al. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200008033430501 · Cited by 699
A Comparison of Omeprazole and Placebo for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer
Khuroo, M. S., Yattoo, G. N., Javid, G., Khan, B. A., Shah, A. A., Gulzar, G. M., & Sodi, J. S. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199704103361503 · Cited by 359
A bivariate approach to meta-analysis
Van Houwelingen, H. C., Zwinderman, K. H., & Stijnen, T. (1993) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780122405 · Cited by 327
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, R., & Langman, M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1985-09-12
- Volume
- 313
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 660-666
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2312978137
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.94
- 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: Treatment with Histamine H2Antagonists in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Implications of Randomized Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198509123131104
- The paper
- Collins, R., & Langman, M. (1985). Treatment with Histamine H2Antagonists in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage: Implications of Randomized Trials. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198509123131104
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.