ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
Hemostatic efficacy and safety of the hemostatic powder UI-EWD in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 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
- Development of a Rapid-Acting Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose-Based Powder for Hemostatic Applications.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Hydrogel Adhesives for Gastrointestinal Perforation: Design Principles and Applications.Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2026Review
- 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
- Prevention of Delayed Bleeding after Endoscopic Resection using Gel Hemostatic Powder: A Multicentric Open-lapel Prospective Study.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Efficacy of hemostatic powder for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Current status and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemostatic powder in gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective multicenter study.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Use of TC-325 Hemostatic Powder as a Rescue Monotherapy for Management of Rectal Variceal Bleed.ACG case reports journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAcute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of emergency hospitalization and may require readmission for re-bleeding. Recently, a novel endoscopic hemostatic powder (UI-EWD/Nexpowder™, Nextbiomedical, Incheon, South Korea) was developed and applied for the control of LGIB. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemostatic efficacy and long-term safety of UI-EWD in LGIB. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of LGIB at a single tertiary center in south Korea. One hundred and sixty-seven consecutive patients with LGIB who were initially successful in endoscopic hemostasis were included and divided into the conventional treatment group (n = 112) and the UI-EWD therapy group (n = 55; 38 patients with conventional treatment and 17 patients with UI-EWD alone). The success rate of hemostasis, adverse events related to UI-EWD, and re-bleeding rate were evaluated.
resultsThe incidence of endoscopic hemostasis applied to the hepatic flexure (7.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.011) and larger than 4 cm (25.5% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in the UI-EWD group than in the conventional therapy group. The cumulative rebleeding rate within 28 days in the UI-EWD group was 5.5% (3/55), which was significantly lower than that in the conventional treatment group (17.0% [19/112]; p = 0.039). No UI-EWD-related adverse events were recorded.
conclusionBased on our results, application of UI-EWD in LGIB showed promising results for the prevention of re-bleeding, especially in locations where it is difficult to approach or cases with more bleeding. There were no significant complications, such as perforation or embolism. In particular, UI-EWD should be considered first for anatomical or technical impediments to endoscopic access in LGIB.
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.