Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Comparison of a novel bedside portable endoscopy device with nasogastric aspiration for identifying upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03009383 (Efficacy of a Bedside Portable Endoscopy on Identifying the Esophageal Foreign Body), which is not on this 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.
Efficacy of a Bedside Portable Endoscopy on Identifying the Esophageal Foreign Body
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 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
- Evaluation and application of an innovative portable field endoscope: addressing battlefield and biosafety concerns.Military Medical Research · 2025Article
- A novel portable upper gastrointestinal endoscopy system with complete functions of both diagnosis and treatment.Endoscopy · 2023Article
- Compact Smartphone-Based Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging Endoscope Device for Point-of-Care Blood Flow Monitoring.Biosensors · 2022Article
- Portable disposable ultrathin endoscopy tested through percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.Medicine · 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
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare outcomes using the novel portable endoscopy with that of nasogastric (NG) aspiration in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.
methodsPatients who underwent NG aspiration for the evaluation of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding were eligible for the study. After NG aspiration, we performed the portable endoscopy to identify bleeding evidence in the UGI tract. Then, all patients underwent conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy as the gold-standard test. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the portable endoscopy for confirming UGI bleeding were compared with those of NG aspiration.
resultsIn total, 129 patients who had GI bleeding signs or symptoms were included in the study (age 64.46 ± 13.79, 91 males). The UGI tract (esophagus, stomach, and duodenum) was the most common site of bleeding (81, 62.8%) and the cause of bleeding was not identified in 12 patients (9.3%). Specificity for identifying UGI bleeding was higher with the portable endoscopy than NG aspiration (85.4% vs 68.8%, P = 0.008) while accuracy was comparable. The accuracy of the portable endoscopy was significantly higher than that of NG in the subgroup analysis of patients with esophageal bleeding (88.2% vs 75%, P = 0.004). Food material could be detected more readily by the portable endoscopy than NG tube aspiration (20.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.014). No serious adverse effect was observed during the portable endoscopy.
conclusionThe portable endoscopy was not superior to NG aspiration for confirming UGI bleeding site. However, this novel portable endoscopy device might provide a benefit over NG aspiration in patients with esophageal 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.