Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 359

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Omeprazole and Placebo for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer

Open access
Khuroo, Mohammad Sultan, Yattoo, Ghulam Nabi, Javid, Gul, Khan, Bashir Ahmad, Shah, Altaf Ahmad, Gulzar, Ghulam Mohammad, Sodi, Jaswinder Singh·1997·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of medical treatment for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 220 patients with duodenal, gastric, or stomal ulcers and signs of recent bleeding, as confirmed by endoscopy. In 26 patients the ulcers showed arterial spurting, in 34 there was active oozing, in 35 there were nonbleeding, visible vessels, and in 125 there were adherent clots. The patients were randomly assigned to receive omeprazole (40 mg given orally every 12 hours for five days) or placebo. The outcome measures studied were further bleeding, surgery, and death. RESULTS: Twelve of the 110 patients treated with omeprazole (10.9 percent) had continued bleeding or further bleeding, as compared with 40 of the 110 patients who received placebo (36.4 percent) (P<0.001). Eight patients in the omeprazole group and 26 in the placebo group required surgery to control their bleeding (P<0.001). Two patients in the omeprazole group and six in the placebo group died. Thirty-two patients in the omeprazole group (29.1 percent) and 78 in the placebo group (70.9 percent) received transfusions (P<0.001). A subgroup analysis showed that omeprazole was associated with significant reductions in recurrent bleeding and surgery in patients with nonbleeding, visible vessels or adherent clots, but not in those with arterial spurting or oozing. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and signs of recent bleeding, treatment with omeprazole decreases the rate of further bleeding and the need for surgery.

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/nejm199704103361503

Cites

15 of 15 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

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

See all 359

Metadata

Authors
Khuroo, M. S., Yattoo, G. N., Javid, G., Khan, B. A., Shah, A. A., Gulzar, G. M., & Sodi, J. S.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1997-04-10
Volume
336
Issue
15
Pages
1054-1058
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W3023580101
Cited by
359
References
15
FWCI
19.31
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 Omeprazole and Placebo for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199704103361503
The paper
Khuroo, M. S., Yattoo, G. N., Javid, G., Khan, B. A., Shah, A. A., Gulzar, G. M., & Sodi, J. S. (1997). A Comparison of Omeprazole and Placebo for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199704103361503

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.