A comparison of five maintenance therapies for reflux esophagitis
New England Journal of Medicine, ISSN: 1533-4406, Vol: 333, Issue: 17, Page: 1106-1110
1995
- 554Citations
- 48Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations554
- Citation Indexes543
- 543
- CrossRef288
- Clinical Citations9
- PubMed Guidelines9
- Policy Citations2
- Policy Citation2
- Captures48
- Readers48
- 48
Article Description
Patients with reflux esophagitis have a high rate of relapse within one year after therapy is discontinued. We enrolled 175 adults with endoscopy-confirmed reflux esophagitis in a prospective study comparing five maintenance therapies. All the patients were initially treated with omeprazole (40 mg orally once a day) for four to eight weeks, and healing was confirmed by endoscopy. Participants were then stratified according to their initial grade of esophagitis and randomly assigned to 12 months of treatment with one of the following: cisapride (10 mg three times a day), ranitidine (150 mg three times a day), omeprazole (20 mg per day), ranitidine plus cisapride, or omeprazole plus cisapride. Endoscopy was repeated after 6 and 12 months of treatment; the endoscopists were blinded to the treatment assignments. Remission was defined as the absence of esophageal lesions on scheduled or unscheduled follow-up endoscopy. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the numbers of patients in continued remission at 12 months were 19 of 35 (54 percent) in the cisapride group, 17 of 35 (49 percent) in the ranitidine group, 28 of 35 (80 percent) in the omeprazole group, 23 of 35 (66 percent) in the ranitidine-plus-cisapride group, and 31 of 35 (89 percent) in the omeprazole-plus-cisapride group. Omeprazole was significantly more effective than cisapride (P = 0.02) or ranitidine (P =0.003), and combination therapy with omeprazole plus cisapride was significantly more effective than cisapride alone (P = 0.003), ranitidine alone (P<0.001), or ranitidine plus cisapride (P = 0.03). Ranitidine plus cisapride was significantly better than ranitidine alone (P = 0.05). For maintenance treatment of reflux esophagitis, omeprazole alone or in combination with cisapride is more effective than ranitidine alone or cisapride alone, and the combination of omeprazole and cisapride is more effective than ranitidine plus cisapride. © 1995, Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Bibliographic Details
New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM/MMS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know