ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Peptic ulcer hemorrhage combined with acute gout: analyses of treatment in 136 cases.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2024 Update of Chinese Guidelines for Management of Hyperuricemia and Gout Part II: Recommendations for Patients With Common Comorbidities.International journal of rheumatic diseases · 2025Guideline
- Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Pharmacologic Interventions in Patients Experiencing a Gout Flare: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Arthritis care & research · 2021Pooled it
- Establishment of a risk assessment system for peptic ulcer recurrence and its value in individualized intervention.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare the safety and curative effect of celecoxib and small-dose methylprednisolone sodium succinate in patients with peptic ulcer hemorrhage combined with acute gout. In this randomized, controlled trial, a total of 136 patients with peptic ulcer hemorrhage combined with acute gout were divided into the celecoxib group or the small-dose methylprednisolone sodium succinate group. These patients underwent gastroscopy hemostasis and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. Moreover, for the treatment of gout, the patients were administered either celecoxib or small-dose methylprednisolone sodium succinate. Adverse reactions and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score were recorded for the two groups. The difference in adverse reactions between the two groups was not significant (χ(2) = 0.002, P = 0.967). The duration of evident pain relief after the first dose of treatment showed a significant difference between the two groups (t = 13.728, P < 0.01). The VAS scores before treatment were not significantly different between the two groups (t = -1.786, P = 0.076). The VAS scores at 6 h, 2 days, 4 days, 6 days, and 8 days after treatment were significantly different between the two groups (t = 3.239, 6.586, 6.280, 3.737, 3.215; P = 0.002, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.002, respectively). In cases that receive effective gastroscopy hemostasis and PPI therapy, small-dose methylprednisolone sodium succinate exhibits a greater clinical curative effect for peptic ulcer hemorrhage combined with acute gout as compared to celecoxib, and is associated with greater safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26131224PMC4483932W2417598945What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.