Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022
Endoscopic thermocoagulation hemostasis for acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive review on the current management of upper-GI bleed.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Review
- An evidence-based nursing practice affects stress state, coagulation, complications and quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department: a retrospective observational study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the application of the bipolar electrocoagulation catheter via a peripheral-to-central (3 + 1) technique, relative to directly pressing only at the center of the bleeding site (direct-stroke), to effect endoscopic hemostasis of acute non-varicose gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB).
methodsPatients (n = 148) with endoscopically diagnosed ANVUGIB were randomly apportioned to receive treatment by 3 + 1 (n = 78) or direct-stroke (n = 70) application of the bipolar electrocoagulation catheter. The 3 + 1 strategy required pressing at3 narrowly restricted sites equidistant peripheral and center to the site of bleeding. The rates of initial success, hemostasis time, and number of compressions were compared according to intention-to-treat (ITT) or per protocol (PP).
resultsThe ITT (PP) rate of initial hemostatic success in patients receiving the 3 + 1 catheter was 91.02% (95.9%); and for the direct-stroke group was 71.42% (76.9%). For Forrest IIa lesions specifically, these rates were respectively 91.70% (97.1%) and 63.9% (67.6%). The ITT (PP) hemostasis times of the 3 + 1 and direct-stroke groups were 10.96 ± 3.28 (10.65 ± 2.90) and 14.27 ± 6.58 (14.12 ± 6.67) min; and the number of compressions numbered 5.73 ± 1.98 (5.42 ± 1.46) and 6.47 ± 2.82 (6.16 ± 2.47).
conclusionDuring thermocoagulation treatment of ANVUGIB via bipolar electrocoagulation catheter, the 3 + 1 strategy showed a significantly higher rate of successful initial hemostasis relative to the direct-stroke technique, and shorter hemostasis time, with no increase in total procedural steps.
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.