Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32104670›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2020

Comparison of the Effects of TIPS versus BRTO on Bleeding Gastric Varices: A Meta-Analysis.

Zi Wen Wang, Jin Chao Liu, Fang Zhao, Wen Guang Zhang, Xu Hua Duan, Peng Fei Chen, Si Fu Yang, Hong Wei Li, Fu Wen Chen, Hong Sheng Shi and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. [Chinese guidelines for clinical diagnosis, treatment, and management of cirrhosis (2025)].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. BRTO: Past, Present, and Future Directions.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Zi Wen WangRadiology Intervention Department, Puyang Oilfield General Hospital, Puyang, China.
Jin Chao LiuRadiology Intervention Department, Puyang Oilfield General Hospital, Puyang, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7806-1346
Fang ZhaoRadiology Intervention Department, Puyang Oilfield General Hospital, Puyang, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0046-0827
Wen Guang ZhangRadiology Intervention Department, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4108-301X
Xu Hua DuanRadiology Intervention Department, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Peng Fei ChenRadiology Intervention Department, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8972-7115
Si Fu YangRadiology Intervention Department, Puyang Oilfield General Hospital, Puyang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8042-0114
Hong Wei LiRadiology Intervention Department, Puyang Oilfield General Hospital, Puyang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9478-471X
Fu Wen ChenRadiology Intervention Department, Puyang Oilfield General Hospital, Puyang, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2452-0011
Hong Sheng ShiRadiology Intervention Department, Puyang Oilfield General Hospital, Puyang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7639-7302
Jian Zhuang RenRadiology Intervention Department, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7003-8678

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched using the keywords: GV, bleeding, TIPS, and BRTO to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The overall survival (OS) rate, imminent haemostasis rate, rebleeding rate, technical success rate, procedure complication rate (hepatic encephalopathy and aggravated ascites), and Child-Pugh score were evaluated. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies comparing TIPS and BRTO for GV due to portal hypertension were included in our meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% CIs using random effects models. Results: A total of nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference between TIPS and BRTO in the OS rate (RR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.98); Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, BRTO brought more benefits to patients, with a higher OS rate and lower rebleeding rate. BRTO is a feasible method for GVB.

Indexed as

Balloon OcclusionCohort StudiesEsophageal and Gastric VaricesFeasibility StudiesFemaleGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansHypertension, PortalMaleMiddle AgedPortasystemic Shunt, Transjugular IntrahepaticRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32104670
PMCPMC7036113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.