The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of Omeprazole and Ranitidine on Ulcer Healing and Relapse Rates in Patients with Benign Gastric Ulcer
Abstract
Omeprazole blocks the action of H+,K+-ATPase in the gastric mucosa and thus inhibits the secretion of hydrochloric acid. We conducted a double-blind multicenter study (45 centers in 13 countries) of 602 patients with benign gastric or prepyloric ulcers to compare the effectiveness of omeprazole (20 mg once daily, 203 patients, or 40 mg once daily, 194 patients) and ranitidine, an H2-receptor antagonist (150 mg twice daily, 205 patients) in promoting ulcer healing and to evaluate the pattern of ulcer relapse during a six-month follow-up. Healing occurred at four weeks in 80 percent of the patients receiving 40 mg of omeprazole, 69 percent of those receiving 20 mg of omeprazole, 69 percent of those receiving ranitidine. At eight weeks, the corresponding figures were 96, 89, and 85 percent. A multivariate analysis of ulcer healing showed that at four weeks the ulcers of significantly more patients receiving omeprazole had healed as compared with patients receiving ranitidine (omeprazole, 40 mg, vs. ranitidine, P less than 0.0005; omeprazole, 20 mg, vs. ranitidine, P = 0.01). At eight weeks, the 40-mg dose of omeprazole was significantly more effective than ranitidine (P = 0.001) or the 20-mg dose of omeprazole (P = 0.03). Ulcer symptoms were relieved faster with omeprazole. In 68 patients receiving concurrent nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, the healing rates at four weeks were 81 percent in the group receiving 40 mg of omeprazole, 61 percent in the group receiving 20 mg, and 32 percent in the group receiving ranitidine; at eight weeks, the corresponding figures were 95, 82, and 53 percent. During the six-month follow-up period (without treatment), significantly more patients in the omeprazole groups were free of symptoms and ulcers than in the ranitidine group. We conclude that in the dose used, omeprazole is superior to ranitidine in the treatment of benign gastric ulcers.
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
Cited by
ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline
Dumonceau, J.-M., Kapral, C., Aabakken, L., Papanikolaou, I. S., Tringali, A., Vanbiervliet, G., Beyna, T., Dinis-Ribeiro, M., Hritz, I., Mariani, A., et al. (2020) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/a-1075-4080 · Cited by 934
(2011) · InTech eBooks · doi:10.5772/749 · Cited by 386
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy
Hawkey, C. J. (2000) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/gast.2000.9561 · Cited by 371
Diagnosis and Treatment of Peptic Ulcer Disease
Kavitt, R. T., Lipowska, A. M., Anyane-Yeboa, A., & Gralnek, I. M. (2019) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.12.009 · Cited by 313
Proton Pump Inhibitors: Pharmacology And Rationale For Use In Gastrointestinal Disorders
Richardson, P., Hawkey, C. J., & Stack, W. A. (1998) · Drugs · doi:10.2165/00003495-199856030-00002 · Cited by 297
Metadata
- Authors
- Walan, A., Bader, J.-P., Classen, M., Lamers, C. B. H. W., Piper, D. W., Rutgersson, K., & Eriksson, S.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1989-01-12
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 69-75
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2330367835
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 51.29
- 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: Effect of Omeprazole and Ranitidine on Ulcer Healing and Relapse Rates in Patients with Benign Gastric Ulcer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198901123200201
- The paper
- Walan, A., Bader, J.-P., Classen, M., Lamers, C. B. H. W., Piper, D. W., Rutgersson, K., & Eriksson, S. (1989). Effect of Omeprazole and Ranitidine on Ulcer Healing and Relapse Rates in Patients with Benign Gastric Ulcer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198901123200201
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.