ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology2021
Resuming aspirin in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review on recent advancements in understanding acetylsalicylic acid-induced gastrointestinal injury: mechanisms, medication, and dosage refinement.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- Impact of blood transfusion on mortality and rebleeding in gastrointestinal bleeding: an 8-year cohort from a tertiary care center.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur primary and secondary aims were to analyze the evidence surrounding mortality and re-bleeding risks in patients on aspirin with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) as a function of whether or not aspirin was resumed after the bleeding episode, and to determine whether aspirin intake upon admission affected the outcomes.
methodsA search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies was performed. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done. Generic inverse variance and random-effects model were employed. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the
resultsEvidence from 1 RCT and 4 observational studies suggests that early aspirin resumption reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.63) while increasing re-bleeding risk (HR 1.90, 95%CI 0.60-6.00); moderate certainty of evidence. The observational evidence was inconsistent for both mortality (HR 0.84, 95%CI 0.54-1.33) and re-bleeding (HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.47-1.55); very low certainty of evidence. Nine observational studies addressed our secondary aim: 6 provided inconsistent results regarding mortality (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 95%CI 0.80-1.50) and 4 provided inconsistent results regarding re-bleeding risk (pooled OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.53-1.59); very low certainty of evidence for both outcomes.
conclusionEvidence supporting a protective effect of aspirin resumption soon after NVUGIB is of low-to-moderate certainty, and is not informative as to the optimal timing of aspirin resumption.
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.