ReviewClinical endoscopy2014
Endoscopy for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective single-center analysis in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Correlation between the Glasgow-Blatchford score, shock index, and Forrest classification in patients with peptic ulcer bleedingTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2020Article
- Dieulafoy lesion: two pediatric case reports.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2020Article
- Volume of hospital is important for the prognosis of high-risk patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB).Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Laboratory test variables useful for distinguishing upper from lower gastrointestinal bleeding.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Endoscopic management of tumor bleeding from inoperable gastric cancer.Clinical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Endoscopic Management of Dieulafoy's Lesion.Clinical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Endoscopic management of peptic ulcer bleeding.Clinical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Endoscopic management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: state of the art.Clinical endoscopy · 2015Review
- Highlights from the 50th seminar of the korean society of gastrointestinal endoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopy for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding plays an important role in primary diagnosis and management, particularly with respect to identification of high-risk stigmata lesions and to providing endoscopic hemostasis to reduce the risk of rebleeding and mortality. Early endoscopy, defined as endoscopy within the first 24 hours after presentation, improves patient outcome and reduces the length of hospitalization when compared with delayed endoscopy. Various endoscopic hemostatic methods are available, including injection therapy, mechanical therapy, and thermal coagulation. Either single treatment with mechanical or thermal therapy or a treatment that combines more than one type of therapy are effective and safe for peptic ulcer bleeding. Newly developed methods, such as Hemospray powder and over-the-scope clips, may provide additional options. Appropriate decisions and specific treatment are needed depending upon the conditions.
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.