ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2011
Radiographic techniques for the localization and treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding of obscure origin.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Small Bowel Bleeding.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Guideline
- Atypical presentation of catastophric spontaneous mesenteric bleeding.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
- Correlation Between Findings of Multislice Helical Computed Tomography (CT), Endoscopic Examinations, Endovascular Procedures, and Surgery in Patients with Symptoms of Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Polish journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Focus on gastrointestinal bleeding.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PURPOSE/
backgroundAcute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is an emergency with high mortality rates, which requires a quick localization and treatment of the bleeding site. In this article, we give a summary of the diagnostic and interventional treatment of acute GIB with an emphasis on radiological methods.
methodsThe MEDLINE database identified relevant studies up until January 2011. Furthermore, experiences drawn from a highly experienced department of diagnostic radiology (~60 transarterial embolizations [TAEs]/year) were taken into account.
resultsClinical risk scores are useful tools to triage patients for appropriate treatment. High-risk patients should undergo emergency endoscopy within 24 h. If endoscopical control of the bleeding cannot be achieved, a computed tomography angiography (CTA) should be done. If active bleeding (or if an active bleeding site) is found, in most cases, TAE should be performed prior to surgery because of the equal mortality rates with lower complication rates. If the site of bleeding is not identified and the patient is stable, a "watch-and-wait" strategy can be pursued. Especially for intermittent bleeding, scintigraphy with tagged red blood cells can be useful.
conclusionManaging obscure acute GIB remains a challenge. The best patient care is achieved with a multidisciplinary team of endoscopists, experienced surgeons, and interventional radiologists. If emergency endoscopy fails, a CTA has to be done, which is more sensitive than conventional angiography. Based on CTA findings, a decision must be made between TAE and surgical intervention.
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.