ArticleBMC gastroenterology2021
Efficacy of a novel hemostatic adhesive powder in patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Nexpowder in Reducing Post-ESD Coagulation Syndrome in Proximal Colon Lesions: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Precise and optimal delivery techniques of hemostatic powders in gastrointestinal bleeding.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Endoscopic Management of Malignancy-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A novel polysaccharide hemostatic agent in prevention of post-procedural bleeding following large colonic polyp resection.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Role of metal nanomaterials in wound healing - a review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Current status and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemostatic powder in gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective multicenter study.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Novel external reinforcement device for gastrointestinal anastomosis in an experimental study.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Topical hemostatic agents in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Hemostatic Powders in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: The Open Questions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- TC-325 hemostatic powder in the management of upper gastrointestinal malignant bleeding: a randomized controlled trial.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Hemostatic powders for gastrointestinal bleeding: a review of old, new, and emerging agents in a rapidly advancing field.Endoscopy international open · 2022Review
- Hemostatic efficacy and safety of the hemostatic powder UI-EWD in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Risk Stratification in Cancer Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford, Rockall and AIMS65, and Development of a New Scoring System.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal tumor bleeding remains a clinical challenge because it is difficult to treat with conventional endoscopic hemostatic options. Recently, an endoscopic hemostatic powder (UI-EWD) was developed and reported to provide effective control of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of current study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of this novel hemostatic powder in tumor bleeding.
methodsA total of 41 consecutive patients with upper gastrointestinal tumor bleeding were included. UI-EWD was applied in all patients as an auxiliary hemostatic method as a salvage therapy or monotherapy during endoscopic treatment. Hemostasis success rates, adverse event related to UI-EWD, and rates of re-bleeding were evaluated.
resultsIn all cases, UI-EWD application was successful at tumor bleeding sites. Immediate hemostasis occurred in 40/41 (97.5%) patients, and re-bleeding within 28 days occurred in 10 of 40 (22.5%) patients that achieved initial hemostasis. The success rate of immediate hemostasis for UI-EWD monotherapy was 100% (23/23). The re-bleeding rate at 28 days after UI-EWD monotherapy was 26.1% (6/23). No adverse events associated with UI-EWD application were encountered.
conclusionsThe success rate of UI-EWD for immediate hemostasis in cases of GI tumor bleeding was excellent and UI-EWD produced promising results with respect to the prevention of re-bleeding. Based on these results, we suggest that UI-EWD be considered an effective salvage therapy or even monotherapy for GI tumor 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.