Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 766

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 access
Schrader, Joachim, Lüders, Stephan, Kulschewski, Anke, Hammersen, Frank, Plate, Kerstin, Berger, Jürgen, Zidek, Walter, Dominiak, Peter, Diener, Hans Christoph, the MOSES Study Group·2005·Stroke

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000166048.35740.a9

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 766

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.