ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Endovascular Embolization for Epistaxis: A Single Center Experience and Meta-Analysis.
Review 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 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.
- Endovascular treatment for posterior epistaxis: should it still be considered a last-resort option? A literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Superselective Unilateral Embolization of the Sphenopalatine Artery for Severe Posterior Epistaxis: A Prospective Study on the Safety and Efficacy.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal treatment for intractable epistaxis is still controversial. Various studies have demonstrated high success rates and low complication rates for endovascular embolization. Herein, the authors report an institutional experience and meta-analysis in terms of efficacy and safety of endovascular embolization of intractable epistaxis. This was a retrospective observational study of 35 patients with epistaxis who underwent 40 embolization procedures between 2010 and 2023. The primary outcome was immediate success defined by immediate cessation of epistaxis at the end of the procedure. Immediate success was achieved in most of the procedures (39, 97.5%). During follow-up, three (7.5%) patients experienced a rebleed. Forty-one studies from 3595 articles were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis and comprised 1632 patients. The mean pooled age was 57.5 years (95% CI: 57.2-57.8) and most patients were males (mean: 70.4, 95% CI: 69.8-71.0). Immediate success was achieved at a pooled mean of 90.9% (95% CI: 90.4-91.4) and rebleeding was observed at a pooled mean of 17% (95% CI: 16.5-17.5). In conclusion, endovascular embolization proved to be both safe and effective in treating intractable epistaxis carrying a low risk of post-operative stroke.
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.