ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Low rate of recurrent bleeding after double-balloon endoscopy-guided therapy in patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes after deep enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a single-center retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- A newly developed deep learning-based system for automatic detection and classification of small bowel lesions during double-balloon enteroscopy examination.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Risk of bleeding following double balloon enteroscopy in patients on continued antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDouble-balloon endoscopy (DBE) provides both diagnosis and treatment in overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). The aim of this study was to evaluate the rebleeding rate after DBE.
methodsThis retrospective review was conducted between January 2006 and July 2018, 166 patients with overt OGIB who underwent DBE were enrolled. Therapeutic intervention was defined as endoscopic treatment, embolization, or surgery. Primary outcome was rebleeding rate after DBE. The patients were divided into 3 groups based on their DBE; (1) positive DBE requiring therapeutic intervention (G1), (2) positive DBE without therapeutic intervention required (G2) and (3) negative DBE (G3). Cumulative incidence of rebleeding was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression was used to assess the association of DBE with rebleeding risk. This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board.
resultsSixty-eight patients (41%) were categorized in G1, 34 patients (20%) in G2 and 64 patients (39%) in G3. Overall rebleeding occurred in 24 patients (15%). The cumulative incidence of rebleeding for G1 was the lowest. The 1-year and 2-year cumulative probability of developing rebleeding after DBE in G1 were 3.5% and 3.5%, 8.2% and 14.0% in G2, and 18.2% and 20.6% in G3, respectively (p = 0.02). After adjusting for bleeding severity and comorbidities, patients with positive DBE requiring therapeutic intervention had a significantly lower rate of rebleeding when compared with patients who did not receive intervention (hazard ratio 0.17; 95% CI 0.03-0.90).
conclusionDBE-guided therapeutic intervention was associated with a lower risk of rebleeding when compared with those with negative and positive DBE without therapeutic intervention. One-fifth of patients with overt OGIB had false negative after DBE.
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.