Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Comparison of Five Maintenance Therapies for Reflux Esophagitis

Open access
Vigneri, Sergio, Termini, Rosanna, Leandro, Gioacchino, Badalamenti, Salvatore, Pantalena, Maurizio, Savarino, Vincenzo, Di Mario, Francesco, Battaglia, Giuseppe, Mela, Giuseppe Sandro, Pilotto, Alberto, Plebani, Mario, Davi, Giovanni·1995·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199510263331703

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.

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 542

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
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.