Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16403233›Full record

Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2006

A comparison of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine in reducing complications of duodenal peptic ulcer.

Manouchehr Khoshbaten, Ebrahim Fattahi, Nosratollah Naderi, Farzaneh Khaleghian, Mohammadreza Rezailashkajani

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Trends and predictors for vagotomy when performing oversew of acute bleeding duodenal ulcer in the United States.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Manouchehr KhoshbatenLiver and Gastrointestinal Diseases Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. mkhoshbaten@yahoo.com
Ebrahim Fattahi
Nosratollah Naderi
Farzaneh Khaleghian
Mohammadreza Rezailashkajani
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences · IRShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastrointestinal bleeding is a common problem and its most common etiology is peptic ulcer disease. Ulcer rebleeding is considered a perilous complication for patients. To reduce the rate of rebleeding and to fasten the improvement of patients' general conditions, most emergency departments in Iran use H2-blockers before endoscopic procedures (i.e. intravenous omeprazole is not available in Iran). The aim of this study was to compare therapeutic effects of oral omeprazole and intravenous cimetidine on reducing rebleeding rates, duration of hospitalization, and the need for blood transfusion in duodenal ulcer patients.

methodsIn this clinical trial, 80 patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to duodenal peptic ulcer and endoscopic evidence of rebleeding referring to emergency departments of Imam and Sina hospitals in Tabriz, Iran were randomly assigned to two equal groups; one was treated with intravenous cimetidine 800 mg per day and the other, with 40 mg oral omeprazole per day.

resultsNo statistically significant difference was found between cimetidine and omeprazole groups in regards to sex, age, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, NSAID consumption, endoscopic evidence of rebleeding, mean hemoglobin and mean BUN levels on admission, duration of hospitalization and the mean time of rebleeding. However, the need for blood transfusion was much lower in omeprazole than in cimetidine group (mean: 1.68 versus 3.58 units, respectively; p < 0.003). Moreover, rebleeding rate was significantly lower in omeprazole group (15%) than in cimetidine group (50%) (p < 0.001).

conclusionThis study demonstrated that oral omeprazole significantly excels intravenous cimetidine in reducing the need for blood transfusion and lowering rebleeding rates in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Though not statistically significant (p = 0.074), shorter periods of hospitalization were found for omeprazole group which merits consideration for cost minimization.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAdultAgedAnti-Ulcer AgentsBlood TransfusionCimetidineDuodenal UlcerEndoscopy, GastrointestinalGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansInjections, IntravenousLength of StayMiddle AgedOmeprazoleSecondary PreventionAnti-Ulcer AgentsCimetidineOmeprazole

Identifiers

PMID16403233
PMCPMC1360671
OpenAlexW1509933622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.