The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Comparison of Five Maintenance Therapies for Reflux Esophagitis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with reflux esophagitis have a high rate of relapse within one year after therapy is discontinued. METHODS: We enrolled 175 adults with endoscopy-confirmed reflux esophagitis in a prospective study comparing five maintenance therapies. All the patients were initially treated with omeprazole (40 mg orally once a day) for four to eight weeks, and healing was confirmed by endoscopy. Participants were then stratified according to their initial grade of esophagitis and randomly assigned to 12 months of treatment with one of the following: cisapride (10 mg three times a day), ranitidine (150 mg three times a day), omeprazole (20 mg per day), ranitidine plus cisapride (10 mg three times a day), or omeprazole plus cisapride. Endoscopy was repeated after 6 and 12 months of treatment; the endoscopists were blinded to the treatment assignments. Remission was defined as the absence of esophageal lesions on scheduled or unscheduled follow-up endoscopy. RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, the numbers of patients in continued remission at 12 months were 19 of 35 (54 percent) in the cisapride group, 17 of 35 (49 percent) in the ranitidine group, 28 of 35 (80 percent) in the omeprazole group, 23 of 35 (66 percent) in the ranitidine-plus-cisapride group, and 31 of 35 (89 percent) in the omeprazole-plus-cisapride group. Omeprazole was significantly more effective than cisapride (P = 0.02) or ranitidine (P = 0.003), and combination therapy with omeprazole plus cisapride was significantly more effective than cisapride alone (P = 0.003), ranitidine alone (P < 0.001), or ranitidine plus cisapride (P = 0.03). Ranitidine plus cisapride was significantly better than ranitidine alone (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis, omeprazole alone or in combination with cisapride is more effective than ranitidine alone or cisapride alone, and the combination of omeprazole and cisapride is more effective than ranitidine plus cisapride.
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
Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Katz, P. O., Gerson, L. B., & Vela, M. F. (2013) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.444 · Cited by 1,767
Updated Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
DeVault, K. R., & Castell, D. O. (2005) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41217.x · Cited by 1,130
Freedberg, D. E., Kim, L. S., & Yang, Y.-X. (2017) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.01.031 · Cited by 891
Koufman, J. A., Aviv, J. E., Casiano, R. R., & Shaw, G. Y. (2002) · Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1067/mhn.2002.125760 · Cited by 666
Proton Pump Inhibitors Are Associated with Reduced Incidence of Dysplasia in Barrett's Esophagus
El-Serag, H. B., Aguirre, T. V., Davis, S., Kuebeler, M., Bhattacharyya, A., & Sampliner, R. E. (2004) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30228.x · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Vigneri, S., Termini, R., Leandro, G., Badalamenti, S., Pantalena, M., Savarino, V., Di Mario, F., Battaglia, G., Mela, G. S., Pilotto, A., Plebani, M., & Davi, G.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1995-10-26
- Volume
- 333
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 1106-1110
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2313046836
- Cited by
- 542
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 28.45
- 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: A Comparison of Five Maintenance Therapies for Reflux Esophagitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199510263331703
- The paper
- Vigneri, S., Termini, R., Leandro, G., Badalamenti, S., Pantalena, M., Savarino, V., Di Mario, F., Battaglia, G., Mela, G. S., Pilotto, A., Plebani, M., & Davi, G. (1995). A Comparison of Five Maintenance Therapies for Reflux Esophagitis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199510263331703
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.