ReviewPakistan journal of medical sciences
Efficacy of Therapeutic Endoscopy for Gastrointestinal Lesion (GI): A network meta-analysis.
Review in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Performance of Linked Color Imaging Compared to White Light Imaging in Endoscopic Diagnosis ofGut and liver · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of Risk Prevention Management Based on Heinrich's Law in Nursing Care of Elderly Patients Undergoing Digestive Endoscopy.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Indication, Location of the Lesion, Diagnostic Yield, and Therapeutic Yield of Double-Balloon Enteroscopy: Seventeen Years of Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndoscopic therapy can reduce the risks of rebleeding, continued bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the different modalities of endoscopic therapy for GI bleeding.
methodsStudies were identified by searching electronic databases MEDLINE. We selected all available clinical studies published after 2000 that assessed efficacy and/or safety of different endoscopic hemostatic techniques in treating GI bleeding. The outcomes evaluated included initial hemostasis, rebleeding rate, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Network meta-analyses were performed to summarize the treatment effects.
resultsTotal 20 studies involving 1845 patients were evaluated. Ten different treatment categories including mechanic, ablative, injection, and combined therapy were compared in our analysis in terms of their efficacy in stopping bleeding and complications. Band ligation [rate: 0.757; 95% Credible Interval (0.565, 0.887)] and injection therapy [rate: 0.891; 95% CI (0.791, 0.944)] had inferior efficacy in attaining initial hemostasis compared to others. Combined therapy of band ligation and HPC and hemoclip may represent the best options for preventing rebleeding and mortality respectively. No significant difference was found among other treatments in terms of complications.
conclusionsWe recommend the application of hemoclips in treating GI bleeding due to its high hemostasis efficacy and low risk of 30-day mortality.
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.