ArticleJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2023
Multicenter propensity score-matched analysis comparing short
Article in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated evidence on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment for colonic diverticular bleeding.DEN open · 2026Review
- Colonic diverticular hemorrhage: Etiology, diagnostic challenges, and evolving therapeutic strategies.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Clinical utility of long cap-assisted hemostasis in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: two cases.Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Endoscopic band ligation alone and combined with clipping for colonic diverticular bleeding: Retrospective comparative study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Usefulness of a long hood for the detection of bleeding sites in colonic diverticular hemorrhage: A randomized controlled trial.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
46 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: While short and long attachment caps are available for colonoscopy, it is unclear which type is more appropriate for stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH) identification in acute hematochezia. This study aimed to compare the performance of short Methods: We selected 6460 patients who underwent colonoscopy with attachment caps from 10 342 acute hematochezia cases in the CODE BLUE-J study. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) to balance baseline characteristics between short and long cap users. Then, the proportion of definitive or presumptive bleeding etiologies found on the initial colonoscopy and SRH identification rates were compared. We also evaluated rates of blood transfusions, interventional radiology, or surgery, as well as the rate of rebleeding and mortality within 30 days after the initial colonoscopy. Results: A total of 3098 patients with acute hematochezia (1549 short cap and 1549 long cap users) were selected for PSM. The rate of colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) diagnosis was significantly higher in long cap users ( Conclusion: Compared to that with short caps, long cap-assisted colonoscopy is superior for the diagnosis of acute hematochezia, especially CDB, and the identification of active bleeding.
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.