ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2019
Over-the-scope clips are cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic full-thickness resection and its treatment alternatives in difficult-to-treat lesions of the lower gastrointestinal tract: a cost-effectiveness analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2020Trial
- Advancing hemostasis: A meta-analysis of novelWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Interactive training with a novel simulation model for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis improves trainee technique and confidence.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Hemostasis Techniques for Non-variceal Upper GI Hemorrhage: Beyond Injection and Cautery.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Over-the-scope clip as first-line therapy for ulcers with high-risk bleeding stigmata is efficient compared to standard endoscopic therapy.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A recent prospective randomised controlled trial ('STING') showed superiority of over-the-scope clips compared to standard treatment in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Cost-effectiveness studies on haemostasis with over-the-scope clips have not been reported so far. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the higher efficacy of the over-the-scope clips treatment outweighs the higher costs of the device compared to standard clips. Methods: For the analysis, the study population of the STING trial was used. Costs for the hospital stay in total as well as treatment-related costs were obtained. The average cost-effectiveness ratio, representing the mean costs per designated outcome, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressing the additional costs of a new treatment strategy per difference in outcome were calculated. The designated outcome was defined as successful haemostasis without rebleeding within seven days, which was the primary endpoint of the STING trial. Average cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for total costs of the hospital stay as well as the haemostasis treatment alone. The cost-effectiveness analysis is taken from the perspective of the care provider. Conclusions: Over-the-scope clip treatment is cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer 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.