Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36578195›Full record

SynthesisGut and liver2023

Does Early Endoscopy Affect the Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Liyi Bai, Wei Jiang, Rui Cheng, Yan Dang, Li Min, Shutian Zhang

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gut and liver, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Liyi BaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory for Precancerous Lesion of Digestive Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, and Beijing Digestive Disease Center.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1627-7376
Wei JiangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory for Precancerous Lesion of Digestive Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, and Beijing Digestive Disease Center.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4606-5822
Rui ChengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory for Precancerous Lesion of Digestive Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, and Beijing Digestive Disease Center.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3598-5623
Yan DangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory for Precancerous Lesion of Digestive Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, and Beijing Digestive Disease Center.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8326-9763
Li MinDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory for Precancerous Lesion of Digestive Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, and Beijing Digestive Disease Center.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9595-5536
Shutian ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory for Precancerous Lesion of Digestive Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases, and Beijing Digestive Disease Center.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-4397
Capital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aims: In patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB), the optimal timing of endoscopy is still a matter of dispute. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the clinical benefit of early endoscopy. Methods: A literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify publications from inception to March 1, 2022. Eligible studies included observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that reported clinical outcomes of endoscopy in patients with ANVUGIB. ANVUGIB patients who underwent endoscopy within 24 hours of admission were considered to have had an early endoscopy. The primary outcome was the mortality rate in ANVUGIB patients who had early or nonearly endoscopy. Results: The final analysis included five randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and 20 observational studies from the 1,206 identified articles. The mortality rate was not significantly reduced among patients who received endoscopy performed within 24 hours, whether in cohort studies nor in RCTs. For subgroup analysis, a higher mortality rate was found only among patients who received very early endoscopy within 12 hours (odds ratio, 1.66; p<0.001, I2=0) in cohort studies. No significant difference in mortality rates was found among patients at high risk of bleeding who received early versus nonearly endoscopy. Conclusions: Early endoscopy within 24 hours does not appear to significantly reduce the mortality rates of patients with ANVUGIB. Further well-designed studies are warranted to address if very early endoscopy within 12 hours can provide a clinical benefit for patients at high risk of bleeding.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, GastrointestinalGastrointestinal HemorrhageAcute DiseaseCohort StudiesHospitalizationHumansEndoscopyGastrointestinal hemorrhageMeta-analysisMortalitySeverity of illness index

Identifiers

PMID36578195
PMCPMC10352052
OpenAlexW4313279778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.