ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Doppler-Guided Second-Look Endoscopy in Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic management of upper non-variceal and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: Where do we stand?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
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
backgroundEndoscopic treatment guided by Doppler endoscopic probes (DEPs) during index endoscopy may be associated with improved outcome in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). As competencies for DEP evaluation are not always available for index endoscopy, we examined the outcome associated with DEP evaluation at second-look endoscopy.
methodsThe study was designed as a non-blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Patients admitted with PUB from Forrest Ia-IIb ulcers, controlled by endoscopic therapy, were randomised (1:1 ratio) to second-look endoscopy <24 h with DEP evaluation of the bleeding ulcer or continued standard treatment. Patients were followed up for 30 days. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included the number of transfusions, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality.
resultsA total of 62 patients were included. At second-look endoscopy, 91% (29/32) of patients had a positive DEP signal at the ulcer base and were treated with contact thermal therapy (n = 29), injection of diluted adrenaline (n = 23), and haemoclips (n = 7). Among the 32 patients treated with DEP evaluation, only one rebled (3%) compared to four patients (13%) in the control group (
conclusionsSecond-look endoscopy with DEP-guided evaluation and treatment is safe and associated with a very low risk of rebleeding (3%) in patients with PUB. Second-look endoscopy with DEP evaluation may be considered in selected PUB patients at high risk of rebleeding, and may represent an alternative to the use of DEP for index endoscopy. Nevertheless, we did not find that second-look endoscopy with DEP evaluation significantly improved patient outcome compared to standard treatment.
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.