ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2013
A pilot study of single-use endoscopy in screening acute gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and Clinical Performance of Single-Use Versus Reusable Gastrointestinal Endoscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Pooled it
- An Operable, Portable, and Disposable Ultrathin Endoscope for Evaluation of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Trial
- Comparison of a novel bedside portable endoscopy device with nasogastric aspiration for identifying upper gastrointestinal bleeding.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Trial
- Portable disposable ultrathin endoscopy tested through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.Medicine · 2016Article
- Development of a Vision-assisted Manometry Catheter for High-resolution Esophageal Manometry.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2016Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the feasibility of a single-use endoscopy as an alternative procedure to nasogastric lavage in patients with acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.
methodsPatients who presented with hematemesis, melena or hematochezia were enrolled in this study. EG scan™ and conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were subsequently performed. Active bleeding was defined as blood in the stomach, and inactive bleeding was defined as coffee ground clots and clear fluid in the stomach. The findings were recorded and compared.
resultsBetween January and March, 2011, 13 patients that presented with hematemesis (n = 4), melena (n = 6), or bleeding from a previous nasogastric feeding tube (n = 3), were enrolled in this study. In 12 patients with upper GI bleeding, the EG scan device revealed that 7 patients had active bleeding and 5 patients had inactive bleeding, whereas conventional EGD revealed that 8 patients had active bleeding and 4 patients had inactive bleeding. The sensitivity and specificity of the EG scan device was 87.5% and 100% for active bleeding, with conventional EGD serving as a reference. No complication were reported during the EG scan procedures.
conclusionThe EG scan is a feasible device for screening acute upper GI bleeding. It may replace nasogastric lavage for the evaluation of acute upper GI bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.