The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared With Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention: Principal Results of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study (MOSES)
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose— In hypertensive stroke patients, for the same level of blood pressure control, eprosartan will be more effective than nitrendipine in reducing cerebrovascular and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Methods— A total of 1405 well-defined, high-risk hypertensives with cerebral event during the last 24 months (proven by cerebral computed tomography scan or nuclear magnetic resonance) were randomized to eprosartan or nitrendipine (mean follow-up 2.5 years). Primary end point was the composite of total mortality and all cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all recurrent events. Results— Randomization was successful without significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Blood pressure was reduced to a comparable extent without any significant differences between the 2 groups during the whole study period (150.7/84 mm Hg and 152.0/87.2 mm Hg with eprosartan and nitrendipine therapy to 137.5/80.8 mm Hg and 136.0/80.2 mm Hg, respectively, confirmed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring). Moreover, already after 3 months, normotensive mean values were achieved, and 75.5% reached values <140/90 mm Hg with the eprosartan regimen and 77.7% with the nitrendipine regimen. During follow-up, in total, 461 primary events occurred: 206 eprosartan and 255 nitrendipine (incidence density ratio [IDR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.96; P =0.014). Cardiovascular events were: 77 eprosartan and 101 nitrendipine (IDR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02; P =0.06); cerebrovascular events: 102 eprosartan and134 nitrendipine (IDR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97; P =0.03). Conclusions— The Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared With Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention (MOSES) study was the first to compare an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist with a calcium antagonist in secondary stroke prevention. In these high-risk hypertensive stroke patients, an early normotensive and comparable blood pressure was achieved. The combined primary end point was significantly lower in the eprosartan group.
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
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
(2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200001203420301 · Cited by 8,663
A Randomized Trial of the Angiotensin-Receptor Blocker Valsartan in Chronic Heart Failure
Cohn, J. N., & Tognoni, G. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa010713 · Cited by 3,108
Staessen, J. A., Fagard, R., Thijs, L., Celis, H., Arabidze, G. G., Birkenhäger, W. H., Bulpitt, C. J., de Leeuw, P. W., Dollery, C. T., Fletcher, A. E., et al. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)05381-6 · Cited by 2,989
Wachtell, K., Lehto, M., Gerdts, E., Olsen, M. H., Hornestam, B., Dahlöf, B., Ibsen, H., Julius, S., Kjeldsen, S. E., Lindholm, L. H., et al. (2005) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.068 · Cited by 826
Why blockade of the renin–angiotensin system reduces the incidence of new-onset diabetes
Jandeleit-Dahm, K. A., Tikellis, C., Reid, C. M., Johnston, C. I., & Cooper, M. E. (2005) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/01.hjh.0000160198.05416.72 · Cited by 293
Cited by
Mancia, G., Fagard, R., Narkiewicz, K., Redón, J., Zanchetti, A., Böhm, M., Christiaens, T., Cifkova, R., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/01.hjh.0000431740.32696.cc · Cited by 5,655
Kernan, W. N., Ovbiagele, B., Black, H. R., Bravata, D. M., Chimowitz, M. I., Ezekowitz, M. D., Fang, M. C., Fisher, M., Furie, K. L., Heck, D. V., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000024 · Cited by 5,170
Kleindorfer, D. O., Towfighi, A., Chaturvedi, S., Cockroft, K. M., Gutierrez, J., Lombardi-Hill, D., Kamel, H., Kernan, W. N., Kittner, S. J., Leira, E. C., et al. (2021) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000375 · Cited by 3,237
Authors/Task Force Members:, Mancia, G., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., Cifkova, R., Fagard, R., Germano, G., Grassi, G., Heagerty, A. M., Kjeldsen, S. E., et al. (2006) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm236 · Cited by 2,384
The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2019)
Umemura, S., Arima, H., Arima, S., Asayama, K., Dohi, Y., Hirooka, Y., Horio, T., Hoshide, S., Ikeda, S., Ishimitsu, T., et al. (2019) · Hypertension Research · doi:10.1038/s41440-019-0284-9 · Cited by 1,880
Metadata
- Authors
- Schrader, J., Lüders, S., Kulschewski, A., Hammersen, F., Plate, K., Berger, J., Zidek, W., Dominiak, P., Diener, H. C., & the MOSES Study Group
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1218-1224
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2146798390
- Cited by
- 766
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 56.43
- 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: Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared With Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention: Principal Results of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study (MOSES). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000166048.35740.a9
- The paper
- Schrader, J., Lüders, S., Kulschewski, A., Hammersen, F., Plate, K., Berger, J., Zidek, W., Dominiak, P., Diener, H. C., & the MOSES Study Group. (2005). Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared With Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention: Principal Results of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study (MOSES). Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000166048.35740.a9
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.