The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Drug Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This therapeutic gain is greater than what has been observed in previous studies with antisecretory and gastrokinetic drugs [23], as well as with artichoke extracts [13]: in all these cases the advantage was in the range of 15%.”
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
Parkman, H. P., Hasler, W. L., & Fisher, R. S. (2004) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.055 · Cited by 738
Giacosa, A., Guido, D., Grassi, M., Riva, A., Morazzoni, P., Bombardelli, E., Perna, S., Faliva, M. A., & Rondanelli, M. (2015) · Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1155/2015/915087 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Dobrilla, G., Comberlato, M., Steele, A., & Vallaperta, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
- Published
- 1989-04
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 169-177
- ISSN
- 0192-0790
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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: Drug Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00004836-198904000-00011
- The paper
- Dobrilla, G., Comberlato, M., Steele, A., & Vallaperta, P. (1989). Drug Treatment of Functional Dyspepsia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004836-198904000-00011
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.
