ArticleGastroenterology report2021
Superiority of urgent vs early endoscopic hemostasis in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding with high-risk stigmata.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Does Early Endoscopy Affect the Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Gut and liver · 2023Pooled it
- Triage for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department: a comparison of risk scoring systems.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Impact of duration to endoscopy in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: propensity score matching analysis of real-world data from Thailand.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Using Anticoagulants: Does the Timing of Endoscopy Affect Outcomes?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- The Accuracy of Pre-Endoscopic Scores for Mortality Prediction in Patients with Upper GI Bleeding and No Endoscopy Performed.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines recommend that all patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) undergo endoscopy within 24 h. It is unclear whether a subgroup may benefit from an urgent intervention. We aimed to evaluate the influence of endoscopic hemostasis and urgent endoscopy on mortality in UGIB patients with high-risk stigmata (HRS).
methodsConsecutive patients with suspected UGIB were enrolled in three Japanese hospitals with a policy to perform endoscopy within 24 h. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Endoscopic hemostasis and endoscopy timing (urgent, ≤6 h; early, >6 h) were evaluated in a regression model adjusting for age, systolic pressure, heart rate, hemoglobin, creatinine, and variceal bleeding in multivariate analysis. A propensity score of 1:1 matched sensitivity analysis was also performed.
resultsHRS were present in 886 of 1966 patients, and 35 of 886 (3.95%) patients perished. Median urgent-endoscopy time (
conclusionsA subgroup of UGIB patients, namely those harboring HRS, may benefit from endoscopic hemostasis and urgent endoscopy rather than early endoscopy in reducing mortality. Implementing triage scores that predict the presence of such lesions is important.
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.