Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 508

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acute Upper Gi Bleeding: Did Anything Change?: Time Trend Analysis of Incidence and Outcome of Acute Upper Gi Bleeding Between 1993/1994 and 2000

van Leerdam, M E, Vreeburg, E M, Rauws, E A J, Geraedts, A A M, Tijssen, J G P, Reitsma, J B, Tytgat, G N J·2003·American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine recent time trends in incidence and outcome of upper GI bleeding. METHODS: Prospective data collection on all patients presenting with acute upper GI bleeding from a defined geographical area in the period 1993/1994 and 2000. RESULTS: Incidence decreased from 61.7/100,000 in 1993/94 to 47.7/100,000 persons annually in 2000, corresponding to a 23% decrease in incidence after age adjustment (95% CI = 15-30%). The incidence was higher among patients of more advanced age. Rebleeding (16% vs 15%) and mortality (14% vs 13%) did not differ between the two time periods. Ulcer bleeding was the most frequent cause of bleeding, at 40% (1993/94) and 46% (2000). Incidence remained stable for both duodenal and gastric ulcer bleeding. Almost one half of all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding were using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Also, among patients with ulcer bleeding, rebleeding (22% vs 20%) and mortality (15% vs 14%) did not differ between the two time periods. Increasing age, presence of severe and life-threatening comorbidity, and rebleeding were associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Between 1993/1994 and 2000, among patients with acute upper GI bleeding, the incidence rate of upper GI bleeding significantly decreased, but no improvement was seen in the risk of rebleeding or mortality in these patients. The incidence rate of ulcer bleeding remained stable. Prevention of ulcer bleeding is important.

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 · 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07517.x

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 508

Metadata

Authors
van Leerdam, M. E., Vreeburg, E. M., Rauws, E. A. J., Geraedts, A. A. M., Tijssen, J. G. P., Reitsma, J. B., & Tytgat, G. N. J.
Venue
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2003-07
Volume
98
Issue
7
Pages
1494-1499
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059057579
Cited by
508
References
31
FWCI
13.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Acute Upper Gi Bleeding: Did Anything Change?: Time Trend Analysis of Incidence and Outcome of Acute Upper Gi Bleeding Between 1993/1994 and 2000. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07517.x
The paper
van Leerdam, M. E., Vreeburg, E. M., Rauws, E. A. J., Geraedts, A. A. M., Tijssen, J. G. P., Reitsma, J. B., & Tytgat, G. N. J. (2003). Acute Upper Gi Bleeding: Did Anything Change?: Time Trend Analysis of Incidence and Outcome of Acute Upper Gi Bleeding Between 1993/1994 and 2000. American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07517.x

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.