ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2024
Diagnostic utility of CT angiography compared with endoscopy in patients with acute GI hemorrhage.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed Tomography-Guided Diagnosis of Massive Cystojejunal Bleeding.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Management of gastrointestinal bleed in the intensive care setting, an updated literature review.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsBecause it is minimally invasive, CT angiography (CTA) has emerged as an attractive diagnostic tool for investigation of acute GI hemorrhage.
methodsThis study examined patients with acute GI bleeding who underwent CTA.
resultsCTA was the initial diagnostic examination in 177 patients, identifying upper and lower GI bleeding lesions in 16 and 27 patients, respectively. In 103 patients with an initial negative CTA, 78 had endoscopy (32 EGD and 46 colonoscopy/flexible sigmoidoscopy), of whom 52 (67%) had a bleeding lesion identified, including 23 with a high-risk bleeding lesion requiring therapy. Peptic ulcer disease and diverticular bleeding were the most commonly identified bleeding lesions. With endoscopy as a criterion standard, the sensitivity of CTA for the detection of a source of GI bleeding was 20%.
conclusionsCTA has very poor sensitivity for identification of a GI bleeding source or lesion, suggesting that CTA should not be used as an initial diagnostic test.
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.