Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?: Adequate analysis of the CLASS trial indicates that this may not be the case

Open access
Jüni, Peter, Rutjes, Anne WS, Dieppe, Paul A·2002·BMJ

Abstract

Selective cyclo-oxygenase 2 (COX 2) inhibitors, including celecoxib (Celebrex) and rofecoxib (Vioxx), are hypothesised to have a lower risk of gastrointestinal complications than traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.1 In September 2000 the celecoxib long term arthritis safety study, better known as CLASS, was published in JAMA .2 This trial, widely cited and distributed, concluded that a COX 2 inhibitor was associated with a lower incidence of complications than traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. What was much less widely publicised were criticisms that contradicted this conclusion. CLASS was reported as a three arm trial comparing celecoxib 800 mg/day with ibuprofen 2400 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Clinically relevant upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications (bleeding, perforation, or obstruction) and symptomatic ulcers during the first six months of treatment were described as the two main outcome measures, comparing incidence rates for celecoxib and a traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (fig 1). It was concluded that, compared with the traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, celecoxib “was associated with a lower incidence of symptomatic ulcers and ulcer complications combined.”3 The trial was funded by celecoxib's manufacturer Pharmacia. An article in the Washington Post in August 20013 and two letters published in JAMA in November 2001 4 5 drew attention to the fact that complete information available to the United States Food and Drug Administration contradicted these conclusions. The paper reporting CLASS2 actually referred to the combined analysis of the results …

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.324.7349.1287

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Jüni, P., Rutjes, A. W., & Dieppe, P. A.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-06-01
Volume
324
Issue
7349
Pages
1287-1288
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2125003309
Cited by
396
References
4
FWCI
38.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?: Adequate analysis of the CLASS trial indicates that this may not be the case. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.324.7349.1287
The paper
Jüni, P., Rutjes, A. W., & Dieppe, P. A. (2002). Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?: Adequate analysis of the CLASS trial indicates that this may not be the case. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7349.1287

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.