The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and peptic ulcer perforation.
Open accessAbstract
A retrospective study is reported in which the ingestion of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) in 269 patients with perforated peptic ulceration and 269 age/sex matched controls admitted between 1973-1982 was compared. A highly significant statistical difference was found (p less than 0.001) in those aged over 65. There was no statistical difference, however, in those aged under 65. Furthermore we have shown a highly statistically significant correlation (p less than 0.0001) between the annual number of patients aged over 65 with perforated peptic ulcers taking NSAID and the annual number of prescriptions issued for these drugs in the region. No such correlation was found for patients aged under 65 years. We suggest that the elderly especially women are unduly susceptible to NSAID associated peptic ulcer perforation, and discuss factors that may account for this.
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.
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
High-risk drugs in the elderly population
Demaagd, G. (1995) · Geriatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/s0197-4572(05)80161-2 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Collier, D. S., & Pain, J. A.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1985-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 359-363
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W1988257004
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.06
- 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.
