Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38650798›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

The Effectiveness of Prophylactic Epinephrine Compared to No Prophylaxis for Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Endoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Akash Patel, Guy Treves, Isha Samreen, Utsav P Vaghani

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Akash PatelInternal Medicine, Eisenhower Health, Rancho Mirage, USA.
Guy TrevesMedicine and Surgery, St. George's University School of Medicine, Irvine, USA.
Isha SamreenInternal Medicine, Hemet Global Medical Center, Hemet, USA.
Utsav P VaghaniInternal Medicine, Smt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Eisenhower Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer prevention has seen significant advancements with colonoscopic polypectomy, a critical technique in clinical practice. However, postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), particularly in the resection of large pedunculated polyps, remains a major complication. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of prophylactic epinephrine injections in preventing PPB, addressing inconsistencies in the literature regarding its effectiveness. Employing a comprehensive search strategy, we rigorously selected studies for inclusion, focusing on those comparing prophylactic epinephrine with no intervention. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool, ensuring a robust and reliable analysis. Our findings, based on an analysis of four studies involving 1,062 patients, indicate a significant reduction in early PPB with epinephrine use, with a marked decrease in bleeding incidence compared to the no-prophylaxis group. However, the impact on delayed bleeding was less conclusive, suggesting the need for further research in this area. Our study thus highlights the effectiveness of epinephrine as a preventive tool in colonoscopic polypectomy while underscoring the complexity of bleeding risks and the necessity for ongoing investigation in optimizing patient outcomes.

Indexed as

bleeding preventioncolonoscopic polypectomyendoscopic techniquespostpolypectomy bleedingprophylactic epinephrinesystematic review and meta analysis

Identifiers

PMID38650798
PMCPMC11034620
OpenAlexW4393119641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.