Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 757

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

Nosocomial Pneumonia in Intubated Patients Given Sucralfate as Compared with Antacids or Histamine Type 2 Blockers

Driks, Michael R., Craven, Donald E., Celli, Bartolome R., Manning, Marie, Burke, Robert A., Garvin, Gail M., Kunches, Laureen M., Farber, Harrison W., Wedel, Suzanne A., McCabe, William R.·1987·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia may result from retrograde colonization of the pharynx from the stomach, and this may be more likely when the gastric pH is relatively high. We studied the rate of nosocomial pneumonia among 130 patients given mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit who were receiving as prophylaxis for stress ulcer either sucralfate (n = 61), which does not raise gastric pH, or conventional treatment with antacids, histamine type 2 (H2) blockers, or both (n = 69). At the time of randomization to treatment, the two groups were similar in age, underlying diseases, and severity of acute illness. Patients in the sucralfate group had a higher proportion of gastric aspirates with a pH less than or equal to 4 (P less than 0.001) and significantly lower concentrations of gram-negative bacilli (P less than 0.05) in gastric aspirates, pharyngeal swabs, and tracheal aspirates than did patients in the antacid-H2-blocker group. The rate of pneumonia was twice as high in the antacid-H2 group as in the sucralfate group (95 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 4.58; P = 0.11). Gram-negative bacilli were isolated more frequently from the tracheal aspirates of patients with pneumonia who were receiving antacids or H2 blockers. Mortality rates were 1.6 times higher in the antacid-H2 group than in the sucralfate group (95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 2.50; P = 0.07). Although our results fell just short of statistical significance when they were analyzed according to intention to treat, they suggest that agents that elevate gastric pH increase the risk of nosocomial pneumonia in patients receiving ventilation by favoring gastric colonization with gram-negative bacilli. We conclude that in patients receiving mechanical ventilation, the use of a prophylactic agent against stress-ulcer bleeding that preserves the natural gastric acid barrier against bacterial overgrowth may be preferable to antacids and H2 blockers.

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 · 10.1056/nejm198711263172204

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

Cited by

See all 757

Metadata

Authors
Driks, M. R., Craven, D. E., Celli, B. R., Manning, M., Burke, R. A., Garvin, G. M., Kunches, L. M., Farber, H. W., Wedel, S. A., & McCabe, W. R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1987-11-26
Volume
317
Issue
22
Pages
1376-1382
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2332847148
Cited by
757
References
2
FWCI
68.81
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: Nosocomial Pneumonia in Intubated Patients Given Sucralfate as Compared with Antacids or Histamine Type 2 Blockers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198711263172204
The paper
Driks, M. R., Craven, D. E., Celli, B. R., Manning, M., Burke, R. A., Garvin, G. M., Kunches, L. M., Farber, H. W., Wedel, S. A., & McCabe, W. R. (1987). Nosocomial Pneumonia in Intubated Patients Given Sucralfate as Compared with Antacids or Histamine Type 2 Blockers. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198711263172204

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.