ArticleClinical endoscopy2022
Comparison of conventional and new endoscopic band ligation devices for colonic diverticular bleeding.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic therapies for colonic diverticular bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical utility of a novel double-band endoscopic band ligation device for consecutive ligation in the management of diverticular bleeding.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Effective endoscopic band ligation for diverticular perforation with a refractory pelvic abscess.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Article
- A new band ligation device to treat colonic diverticular bleeding.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Early rebleeding rate following endoscopic treatment of colonic diverticular bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEndoscopic band ligation (EBL) is used to treat colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). An endoscopic variceal ligation device for esophageal varices is used as a conventional EBL device (C-EBL). A new EBL device (N-EBL) was developed by Sumitomo Bakelite Co. in August 2018. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of N-EBL compared with those of C-EBL.
methodsSeventy-nine patients who underwent EBL for CDB at St. Luke's International Hospital, Japan, between 2017 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into the C-EBL and N-EBL groups. Their clinical outcomes, including achieving initial hemostasis, early rebleeding, procedure time, and EBL-associated adverse events, were evaluated.
resultsOf the 79 patients, 36 (45.6%) were in the C-EBL group and 43 (54.4%) were in the N-EBL group. The rate of achieving initial hemostasis was 100% in the C-EBL group and 93.0% in the N-EBL group. No significant difference was noted in the early rebleeding rate between the groups (p=0.24). The N-EBL group achieved a shorter median EBL procedure time than the C-EBL group (18.2 minutes vs. 14.2 minutes, p=0.02). No adverse events were observed in either group.
conclusionThe N-EBL device is safe and useful and may reduce EBL procedure time.
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.