Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29358997›Full record

ArticlePrzeglad gastroenterologiczny2017

Characteristics and outcomes of gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding: a single-centre experience in Lithuania.

Pavel Petrik, Saulė Brašiškienė, Eglė Petrik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Przeglad gastroenterologiczny, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pavel PetrikClinic of Gastroenterology, Nephro-Urology and Surgery, Centre of General Surgery, Vilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Saulė BrašiškienėClinic of Gastroenterology, Nephro-Urology and Surgery, Centre of Hepatology, Gastroenterology and Dietetics, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Eglė PetrikDepartment of Physiology, Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Laboratory Medicine, Vilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite the optimal use of combined endoscopic haemostasis and pharmacologic control of acid secretion in the stomach, mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) has remained constant. Recent data has shown that the majority of patients with PUB die of non-bleeding-related causes.

aimTo provide an overview of our experience of PUB management, with emphasis on the effect of age, gender, comorbidities, and drug use on the characteristics and outcomes of gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients admitted with the primary diagnosis of acute, chronic or unspecified gastric and/or duodenal ulcer with haemorrhage during 2008-2012.

resultsTwo hundred and nineteen patients were identified. 46.6% of patients were ≥ 65 years old (elderly) and 53.4% were < 65 years old (young). The young patients were more likely to have duodenal ulcers and liver failure at admission. Previous use of medications was more regularly observed in gastric ulcer patients than in duodenal ulcer patients. Rebleeding occurred in 43 (19.6%) patients and death in 5 (2.3%) patients. Increased risk of mortality in our patients was associated with age ≥ 65 years (RR = 2.21; 95% CI: 1.90-2.56;

conclusionsManagement of peptic ulcer bleeding should aim at reducing the risk of multiorgan failure and cardiopulmonary death instead of focusing merely on successful haemostasis.

Indexed as

comorbid illnessespeptic ulcer bleeding

Identifiers

PMID29358997
PMCPMC5771452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.