ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2019
[Treatment of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: endoluminal-endovascular-surgical].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has a high mortality. Hematemesis sometimes with melena are the leading clinical symptoms. Peptic ulcers and (erosive) inflammation are common, whereas Mallory-Weiss syndrome, neoplasms, angiodysplasia and diffuse UGIB are less common. PROBLEM: A risk stratification is based on the medical history, clinical presentation and laboratory tests, which are considered in the Glasgow-Blatchford score; however, which treatment approach is optimal?
resultsAfter stabilisation under restricted transfusion indications, temporary stoppage of anticoagulants and optimized coagulation is beneficial and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) should be started. Prokinetics improve the endoscopic conditions in UGIB. The use of an endoscopic Doppler probe optimizes localization of the bleeding site. The use of the Forrest classification and Helicobacter pylori diagnostics are recommended. Mechanical (clips, injection), thermal (argon plasma coagulation, APC) and topical (hemostatic powder) endoscopic treatment procedures are available. Endoluminal hemostasis is very effective. Only clip application is suitable as monotherapy whereas all other endoscopic options should be combined. Angiography followed by transarterial embolization (TAE) can be used for therapy. Despite the high primary success rate, the risk of rebleeding is high. Surgery as the primary treatment is rarely necessary, although effective. Compared to TAE complications are higher, but there is no difference regarding mortality.
conclusionEndoscopy remains the gold standard for the initial diagnostics and treatment of UGIB. In cases of rebleeding repeated endoscopy is recommended. With persistent UGIB an endovascular procedure should be evaluated. Surgery remains an important salvage option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31392464What 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.