ArticleClinical endoscopy2016
Usefulness of the Forrest Classification to Predict Artificial Ulcer Rebleeding during Second-Look Endoscopy after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Machine learning in gastrointestinal endoscopy: challenges and opportunities.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Forrest Classification for Bleeding Peptic Ulcer: A New Look at the Old Endoscopic Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Healing of Ulcers after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Clinical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Risk factors for delayed bleeding by onset time after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasm.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Bleeding in patients who underwent scheduled second-look endoscopy 5 days after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric lesions.BMC gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Second-Look Endoscopy after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Can We Obtain Valuable Information?Clinical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Closure of large post-endoscopic submucosal dissection defects with lateral mucosal incisions and clips.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsDelayed post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) bleeding (DPEB) is difficult to predict and there is controversy regarding the usefulness of prophylactic hemostasis during second-look endoscopy. This study evaluated the risk factors related to DPEB, the relationship between clinical outcomes and the Forrest classification, and the results of prophylactic hemostasis during second-look endoscopy.
methodsSecond-look endoscopy was performed on the day after ESD to check for recent hemorrhage or potential bleeding and the presence of artificial ulcers in all patients.
resultsDPEB occurred in 42 of 581 patients (7.2%). Multivariate analysis determined that a specimen size ≥40 mm (odds ratio [OR], 3.03; p=0.003), and a high-risk Forrest classification (Forrest Ib+IIa+IIb; OR, 6.88; p<0.001) were risk factors for DPEB. DPEB was significantly more likely in patients classified with Forrest Ib (OR, 24.35; p<0.001), IIa (OR, 12.91; p<0.001), or IIb (OR, 8.31; p<0.001) ulcers compared with Forrest III ulcers. There was no statistically significant difference between the prophylactic hemostasis and non-hemostasis groups (Forrest Ib, p=0.938; IIa, p=0.438; IIb, p=0.397; IIc, p=0.773) during second-look endoscopy.
conclusionsThe Forrest classification of artificial gastric ulcers during second-look endoscopy seems to be a useful tool for predicting delayed bleeding. However, routine prophylactic hemostasis during second-look endoscopy seemed to not be useful for preventing DPEB.
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.