ReviewFrontline gastroenterology2019
Management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: where are we in 2018?
Review in Frontline gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive review on the current management of upper-GI bleed.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Comparison of Four Scoring Systems for Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Cureus · 2024Article
- Predictive utility of the Rockall scoring system in patients suffering from acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- How I Do It: Endovascular Management of Acute Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2023Review
- Interpretations of the Role of Plasma Albumin in Prognostic Indices: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Endoscopy international open · 2023Review
- Comparison of intermittent and continuous proton pump inhibitor infusions in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A retrospective study.Saudi medical journal · 2022Article
- PuraStat in gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a prospective multicentre observational pilot study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Observational
- Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of clinical outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Acute Upper Non-variceal and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Review
- Update on the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.BMJ medicine · 2022Review
- Outcomes of Hemospray therapy in the treatment of intraprocedural upper gastrointestinal bleeding post-endoscopic therapy.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Observational
- Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford Score and Rockall Score in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2020Article
- Endoscopic advances in the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Review
- Justification of Genetic Factors for Predicting the Risk of Acute Bleeding in Peptic Ulcer Disease.Journal of medicine and lifeArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies in the UK. Despite advancement in technology the management of AUGIB remains a challenge. The clinical community recognise the need for improvement in the treatment of these patients. AUGIB has a significant impact on resources. Endoscopic therapy is the gold standard treatment. The mortality in AUGIB is rarely related to the presenting bleed but significantly associated with concurrent comorbidities. The cost of blood transfusion in the management of patients with AUGIB is significant and misuse of blood products has been documented nationally. Risk stratification tools such as Glasgow-Blatchford Score, Rockall Score and the AIMS65 score have allowed clinicians to triage patients appropriately in order to deliver endoscopic therapy within a suitable time frame. Endoscopic therapeutic modalities such as epinephrine injection, heat thermocoagulation and mechanical clips have had a positive impact on patient's management. However, in order to continue to improve patient's outcomes, further developments are needed.
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.