Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36311923›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022

Esophageal variceal ligation plus sclerotherapy vs. ligation alone for the treatment of esophageal varices.

Xiaofen Yue, Zeyu Wang, Jianbiao Li, Xiaoling Guo, Xiehua Zhang, Shengnan Li, Hongcheng Lv, Dongsheng Hu, Xiangjun Ji, Shuang Li and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Managing a Prospective Liver Transplant Recipient on the Waiting List.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Xiaofen YueDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Liver Cancer Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Zeyu WangDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Liver Cancer Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Jianbiao LiDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Third Central Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Extracorporeal Life Support for Critical Diseases, Artificial Cell Engineering Technology Research Center, Tianjin, China.
Xiaoling GuoDepartment of Hepatology, Tianjin Second People's Hospital, Tianjin Institute of Hepatology, Tianjin, China.
Xiehua ZhangDepartment of Infectious Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Baotou Medical College, Baotou, China.
Shengnan LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Liver Cancer Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Hongcheng LvDepartment of Oncology, Tianjin Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Dongsheng HuDepartment of Hepatology, Tianjin Second People's Hospital, Tianjin Institute of Hepatology, Tianjin, China.
Xiangjun JiDepartment of Hepatology, Tianjin Second People's Hospital, Tianjin Institute of Hepatology, Tianjin, China.
Shuang LiDepartment of Hepatology, Tianjin Second People's Hospital, Tianjin Institute of Hepatology, Tianjin, China.
Wei LuDepartment of Hepatobiliary Oncology, Liver Cancer Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of esophageal variceal ligation (EVL) vs. EVL combined with endoscopic injection sclerosis (EIS) in the therapy of esophageal varices. Methods: Patients from January 2017 to August 2021 who received EVL alone (control group) or EVL plus EIS (intervention group) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Efficacy, including rebleeding (clinically hematemesis or melena, confirmed by endoscopy as esophagogastric varices bleeding), variceal recurrence rate (the presence of esophagogastric varices which is needed to be treated again) the number of sessions performed to complete eradication of varices, and safety (adverse events) were compared. The variceal recurrence-associated factors were derived by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: The variceal recurrence and rebleeding rate in the intervention group showed significantly lower than the control group (2.6% vs 10.3%, Conclusions: The intervention group may obtain lower recurrence, rebleeding rate, and fewer sessions performed to complete eradication of varices (number of sessions) and similar incidence of adverse events, especially for prophylactically treatment. Among the intervention group, the diameter of esophageal varices and gastric varices were closely associated with variceal recurrence.

Indexed as

endoscopic injection sclerosisesophageal variceal bleedingesophageal variceal ligationrebleedrecurrence

Identifiers

PMID36311923
PMCPMC9614367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.