ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Prevalence and characteristics of S-point bleeding compared to non S-point bleeding in severe epistaxis.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Classification of Severe Spontaneous Epistaxis: A Case-Series of 445 Patients.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- The importance of the anterior ethmoidal artery in idiopathic epistaxis: a retrospective study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStamm's S-point is gaining importance as a bleeding focus in severe epistaxis. However, prevalence and features of S-point bleeding compared to non S-point bleeding have not been studied.
objectiveTo investigate the characteristics of patients with S-point bleeding among those with severe epistaxis and to compare the factors involved in the treatment of epistaxis.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed medical records of 268 patients admitted to the otorhinolaryngology department of Konkuk University Hospital and Chung-Ang University Hospital with epistaxis of which the bleeding focus clarified. Patients with anterior nasal bleeding (n=129) were excluded. The study was conducted at the department of otorhinolaryngology from January 2008 to August 2019. Collected data included patients' demographic information, bleeding focus, body mass index underlying medical and sinonasal diseases, laboratory test results (initial hemoglobin, platelet count, and triglyceride level), use of anticoagulants, direction of epistaxis, initial and final treatments, and need for blood transfusion.
resultsThe prevalence of S-point bleeding was 28.8% of non-anterior bleeding cases. Mean body mass index score was lower in the S-point group (23.41±3.71) compared to the non S-point group (24.93±3.97) (p=0.039). Underweight patients tended to show a greater incidence of S-point bleeding (15.0%) than non S-point bleeding (2.0%) (p=0.010). Incidence of anemia was higher in the S-point group (67.5%) than in the non S-point group (36.4%). Anemia (Odds ratio [OR]: 3.635; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.669-7.914, p=0.001) and underweight (body mass index<18.5, OR: 8.559, CI: 1.648-44.445, p=0.011) were significantly associated with S-point bleeding.
conclusionPrevalence of S-point bleeding was significant, underlining the importance of examining the S-point in patients with severe epistaxis. Patients with S-point bleeding had lower body mass index scores and a higher incidence of anemia than those with non S-point 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.