Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 865

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Calcium Supplements for the Prevention of Colorectal Adenomas

Open access
Baron, J.A., Beach, M., Mandel, J.S., van Stolk, R.U., Haile, R.W., Sandler, R.S., Rothstein, R., Summers, R.W., Snover, D.C., Beck, G.J., Bond, J.H., Frankl, H., Pearson, L., Greenberg, E.R.·1999·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Laboratory, clinical, and epidemiologic evidence suggests that calcium may help prevent colorectal adenomas. We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial of the effect of supplementation with calcium carbonate on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. We randomly assigned 930 subjects (mean age, 61 years; 72 percent men) with a recent history of colorectal adenomas to receive either calcium carbonate (3 g [1200 mg of elemental calcium] daily) or placebo, with follow-up colonoscopies one and four years after the qualifying examination. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects in whom at least one adenoma was detected after the first follow-up endoscopy but up to (and including) the second follow-up examination. Risk ratios for the recurrence of adenomas were adjusted for age, sex, lifetime number of adenomas before the study, clinical center, and length of the surveillance period. RESULTS: The subjects in the calcium group had a lower risk of recurrent adenomas. Among the 913 subjects who underwent at least one study colonoscopy, the adjusted risk ratio for any recurrence of adenoma with calcium as compared with placebo was 0.85 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.98; P=0.03). The main analysis was based on the 832 subjects (409 in the calcium group and 423 in the placebo group) who completed both follow-up examinations. At least one adenoma was diagnosed between the first and second follow-up endoscopies in 127 subjects in the calcium group (31 percent) and 159 subjects in the placebo group (38 percent); the adjusted risk ratio was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.99; P=0.04). The adjusted ratio of the average number of adenomas in the calcium group to that in the placebo group was 0.76 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.96; P=0.02). The effect of calcium was independent of initial dietary fat and calcium intake. CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation is associated with a significant - though moderate - reduction in the risk of recurrent colorectal adenomas.

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/nejm199901143400204

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 865

Metadata

Authors
Baron, J. A., Beach, M., Mandel, J. S., van Stolk, R. U., Haile, R. W., Sandler, R. S., Rothstein, R., Summers, R. W., Snover, D. C., Beck, G. J., Bond, J. H., Frankl, H., Pearson, L., & Greenberg, E. R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1999-01-14
Volume
340
Issue
2
Pages
101-107
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2319963574
Cited by
865
References
1
FWCI
19.82
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

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.