ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2019
Comparison of Hemospray
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precise and optimal delivery techniques of hemostatic powders in gastrointestinal bleeding.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Therapeutic Intervention in Pediatric Endoscopy: Management of Postsurgical Complications and Bleeding.Visceral medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy and applications for PuraStatWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Single-center, prospective study evaluating safety and efficacy of a new endoscopic hemostat system in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Impact of Using Self-Assembling Peptide (PuraStat) on Anastomotic Ulcers-A Multicenter Case Series.ACG case reports journal · 2024Article
- Efficacy of novel endoscopic hemostatic agent for bleeding control and prevention: Results from a prospective, multicenter national registry.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Turn over the new leaf of the treatment in peptic ulcer bleeding: a review of the literature.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Endoscopic Management of Bleeding in Altered Anatomy after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Topical hemostatic agents in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Esophagogastric Varices.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Efficacy and safety of CounterFlow in animal models of hemorrhage.Journal of military, veteran and family health · 2023Review
- Modification of the endoscopic hemostatic powder application technique.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2023Article
- Hemostatic Powders in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: The Open Questions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Review Article: Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk with Direct Oral Anticoagulants.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2022Review
- Hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding: a review of old, new, and emerging agents in a rapidly advancing field.Endoscopy international open · 2022Review
- PuraStat in gastrointestinal bleeding: results of a prospective multicentre observational pilot study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Observational
- Retained Endoscope: An Unexpected but Serious Complication of Hemospray®.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of hemostatic powders in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding is halted by endoscopically delivered self-propelling thrombin powder: A porcine pilot study.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Evolution in the Practice of Pediatric Endoscopy and Sedation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common indication for endoscopy. For refractory cases, hemostatic powders (HP) represent "touch-free" agents.
aimTo analyze short term (ST-within 72 h-) and long-term (LT-within 30 d-) success for achieving hemostasis with HP and to directly compare the two agents Hemospray (HS) and Endoclot (EC).
methodsHP was applied in 154 consecutive patients (mean age 67 years) with GI bleeding. Patients were followed up for 1 mo (mean follow-up: 3.2 mo).
resultsMajority of applications were in upper GI tract (89%) with following bleeding sources: peptic ulcer disease (35%), esophageal varices (7%), tumor bleeding (11.7%), reflux esophagitis (8.7%), diffuse bleeding and erosions (15.3%). Overall ST success was achieved in 125 patients (81%) and LT success in 81 patients (67%). Re-bleeding occurred in 27% of all patients. In 72 patients (47%), HP was applied as a salvage hemostatic therapy, here ST and LT success were 81% and 64%, with re-bleeding in 32%. As a primary hemostatic therapy, ST and LT success were 82% and 69%, with re-bleeding occurring in 22%. HS was more frequently applied for upper GI bleeding (
conclusionBoth HP allow for effective hemostasis with no differences in ST, LT success and re-bleeding.
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.