ArticleAfrican health sciences2023
Risk factors analysis of endoscopy and TIPS in the treatment of secondary esophagogastric varicose bleeding with cirrhosis.
Article in African health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of liver function and related factors in patients with chronic hepatitis B-related cirrhosis complicated with esophagogastric variceal bleeding.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for 90-day mortality risk after discharge in patients with cirrhosis and esophagogastric variceal bleeding.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Association between international normalized ratio-to-albumin ratio and mortality in critically ill patients with gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective MIMIC-IV database study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Editor's choice: Sexual reproductive health, child issues, NCDs, surgery, infections and health systems - a salad of sorts.African health sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyse the risk factors of secondary hemorrhage and survival rate in cirrhotic patients with esophagogastric variceal rupture and to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic hemostasis and TIPS (transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt). Methods: A total of 120 patients with secondary bleeding after endoscopic treatment of esophagogastric varicose bleeding with cirrhosis in our hospital during the past 3 years were retrospectively analysed. There were 65 males and 55 females, ranging in age from 49 to 74 years old, with an average of (59.5 ± 8.4) years old. The etiology, degree of varicose veins, bleeding location, hemostasis method, Infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer thrombus, albumin, platelets, prothrombin activity, Child Pugh (Child-Pugh classification is a diagnostic criterion for liver reserve function) grade were compared in each group. The risk factors of treatment failure and analyse the survival time was analysed. Results: There were statistically significant differences in varicosis degree, infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer thrombus, child Pugh grade, albumin and prothrombin activity between the failed Endoscopy group and the successful hemostasis group (P< 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in child Pugh grade, albumin and prothrombin activity between the failed TIPS treatment group and successful hemostasis group (P< 0.05). There was no significant difference in 1-year survival between the endoscopy group and the TIPS group. Conclusion: Severe varicose veins, infection, ascites, portal vein thrombosis or cancer thrombus, child pugh classification, albumin, and prothrombin activity were the major risk factors for failed secondary endoscopic therapy, child Pugh classification, albumin and prothrombin activity were the main risk factors for failure TIPS treatment. There is no significant difference in long-term survival between the two methods.
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.