1980
DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.1980.tb04241.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cimetidine and Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Double‐blind Controlled Trial

Abstract: Patients presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a variety of lesions were admitted to a prospective double-blind controlled trial to determine if cimetidine reduces the severity of bleeding and/or the incidence of rebleeding. During the first 48 hours, the patients received intravenous cimetidine (200 mg four-hourly) or placebo, and for the following ten days, oral cimetidine (1 g/24 hr) or placebo. Eight-eight patients entered the trial of whom 45 (51%) were in the cimetidine-treated group… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1983
1983
1989
1989

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 4 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In only one of 12 such trials where the value of treatment has been compared with that of placebo, were there more than five deaths recorded in placebo treated patients (even then a number far too small to permit reliable comparisons with the treated groups.) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Assessment is complicated by at least three other problems. Where sets of data do not show overall differences of substance there is an understandable but dangerous and misleading tendency to carry out subgroup analyses.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In only one of 12 such trials where the value of treatment has been compared with that of placebo, were there more than five deaths recorded in placebo treated patients (even then a number far too small to permit reliable comparisons with the treated groups.) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Assessment is complicated by at least three other problems. Where sets of data do not show overall differences of substance there is an understandable but dangerous and misleading tendency to carry out subgroup analyses.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%