Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 737

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Sucralfate and Ranitidine for the Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation

Open access
Cook, Deborah, Guyatt, Gordon, Marshall, John, Leasa, David, Fuller, Hugh, Hall, Richard, Peters, Sharon, Rutledge, Frank, Griffith, Lauren, McLellan, Allan, Wood, Gordon, Kirby, Ann, Tweeddale, Martin, Pagliarello, Joe, Johnston, Richard·1998·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation are at increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding from stress ulcers. There are conflicting data on the effect of histamine H2-receptor antagonists and the cytoprotective agent sucralfate on rates of gastrointestinal bleeding, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and mortality. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we compared sucralfate with the H2-receptor antagonist ranitidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 1200 patients who required mechanical ventilation. Patients received either nasogastric sucralfate suspension (1 g every six hours) and an intravenous placebo or intravenous ranitidine (50 mg every eight hours) and a nasogastric placebo. RESULTS: The patients in the two groups had similar base-line characteristics. Clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 10 of 596 (1.7 percent) of the patients receiving ranitidine, as compared with 23 of 604 (3.8 percent) of those receiving sucralfate (relative risk, 0.44; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.92; P=0.02). In the ranitidine group, 114 of 596 patients (19.1 percent) had ventilator-associated pneumonia, as compared with 98 of 604 (16.2 percent) in the sucralfate group (relative risk, 1.18; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.51; P=0.19). There was no significant difference between the groups in mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (23.5 percent in the ranitidine group and 22.9 percent in the sucralfate group) or the duration of the stay in the ICU (median, nine days in both groups). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, those receiving ranitidine had a significantly lower rate of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding than those treated with sucralfate. There were no significant differences in the rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, the duration of the stay in the ICU, or mortality.

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/nejm199803193381203

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 737

Metadata

Authors
Cook, D., Guyatt, G., Marshall, J., Leasa, D., Fuller, H., Hall, R., Peters, S., Rutledge, F., Griffith, L., McLellan, A., Wood, G., Kirby, A., Tweeddale, M., Pagliarello, J., & Johnston, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1998-03-19
Volume
338
Issue
12
Pages
791-797
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2321823406
Cited by
737
References
3
FWCI
51.37
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 Sucralfate and Ranitidine for the Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199803193381203
The paper
Cook, D., Guyatt, G., Marshall, J., Leasa, D., Fuller, H., Hall, R., Peters, S., Rutledge, F., Griffith, L., McLellan, A., Wood, G., Kirby, A., Tweeddale, M., Pagliarello, J., & Johnston, R. (1998). A Comparison of Sucralfate and Ranitidine for the Prevention of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199803193381203

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.