Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Omeprazole versus placebo for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: randomised double blind controlled trial.

Open access
Daneshmend, T. K., Hawkey, C. J., Langman, M. J., Logan, R. F., Long, R. G., Walt, R. P.·1992·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the possible therapeutic role of omeprazole, a powerful proton pump inhibitor, in unselected patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. DESIGN: Double blind placebo controlled parallel group study. Active treatment was omeprazole 80 mg intravenously immediately, then three doses of 40 mg intravenously at eight hourly intervals, then 40 mg orally at 12 hourly intervals. Treatment was started within 12 hours of admission and given for four days or until surgery, discharge, or death. SETTING: The medical wards of University and City Hospitals, Nottingham. SUBJECTS: 1147 consecutive patients aged 18 years or more admitted over 40 months with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality from all causes; rate of rebleeding, transfusion requirements, and operation rate; effect of treatment on endoscopic appearances at initial endoscopy. RESULTS: Of 1147 patients included in the intention to treat analysis, 569 received placebo and 578 omeprazole. No significant differences were found between the placebo and omeprazole groups for rates of transfusion (302 (53%) placebo v 298 (52%) omeprazole), rebleeding (100 (18%) v 85 (15%)), operation (63 (11%) v 62 (11%)), and death (30 (5.3%) v 40 (6.9%)). However, there was an unexpected but significant reduction in endoscopic signs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients treated with omeprazole compared with those treated with placebo (236 (45%) placebo v 176 (33%) omeprazole; p less than 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole failed to reduce mortality, rebleeding, or transfusion requirements, although the reduction in endoscopic signs of bleeding suggests that inhibition of acid may be capable of influencing intragastric bleeding. Our data do not justify the routine use of acid inhibiting drugs in the management of haematemesis and melaena.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.304.6820.143

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.

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

Cited by

See all 242

Metadata

Authors
Daneshmend, T. K., Hawkey, C. J., Langman, M. J., Logan, R. F., Long, R. G., & Walt, R. P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1992-01-18
Volume
304
Issue
6820
Pages
143-147
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2037290396
Cited by
242
References
0
FWCI
15.44
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: Omeprazole versus placebo for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: randomised double blind controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.304.6820.143
The paper
Daneshmend, T. K., Hawkey, C. J., Langman, M. J., Logan, R. F., Long, R. G., & Walt, R. P. (1992). Omeprazole versus placebo for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: randomised double blind controlled trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.304.6820.143

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.