Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38680197›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2024

Role of second look endoscopy in endoscopic submucosal dissection and peptic ulcer bleeding: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Gowthami Sai Kogilathota Jagirdhar, Jose Andres Perez, Akshat Banga, Rakhtan K Qasba, Ruman K Qasba, Harsha Pattnaik, Muhammad Hussain, Yatinder Bains, Salim Surani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Gowthami Sai Kogilathota JagirdharDepartment of Medicine, Saint Francis Health Science Center, Newark, NJ 07107, United States.
Jose Andres PerezDepartment of Medicine, Saint Francis Health Systems, Tulsa, OK 74133, United States.
Akshat BangaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur 302004, India.
Rakhtan K QasbaDepartment of Medicine, Green Life Medical College and Hospital, Dhaka 1205, Bangladesh.
Ruman K QasbaDepartment of Medicine, Sher-i-kashmir Institute of Medical Science, Jammu, Srinagar 190011, India.
Harsha PattnaikDepartment of Medicine, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi 110001, India.
Muhammad HussainDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saint Michaels Medical Center, Newark, NJ 07102, United States.
Yatinder BainsDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saint Michaels Medical Center, Newark, NJ 07102, United States.
Salim SuraniDepartment of Medicine and Pharmacology, Texas AM University, College Station, TX 77843, United States. srsurani@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSecond-look endoscopy (SLE) to prevent recurrent bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and those undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is routinely being performed. Conflicting evidence exists regarding efficacy, risk, benefit, and cost-effectiveness.

aimTo identify the role and effectiveness of SLE in ESD and PUD, associated rebleeding and PUD-related outcomes like mortality, hospital length of stay, need for endoscopic or surgical intervention and blood transfusions.

methodsA systematic review of literature databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was conducted from inception to January 5, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that compared patients with SLE to those who did not have SLE or evaluated the role of prophylactic hemostasis during SLE compared to other conservative interventions were included. The study was conducted per PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023427555:). RevMan was used to perform meta-analysis, and Mantel-Haenszel Odds ratio (OR) were generated using random effect models.

resultsA total of twelve studies with 2687 patients were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis, of which 1074 patients underwent SLE after ESD and 1613 patients underwent SLE after PUD-related bleeding. In ESD, the rates of rebleeding were 7% in the SLE group compared to 4.4% in the non-SLE group with OR 1.65, 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 0.96 to 2.85;

conclusionSLE does not confer any benefit in preventing ESD and PUD-associated rebleeding. SLE also does not provide any significant improvement in mortality, need for interventions, or blood transfusions in PUD patients. SLE decreases the hospital length of stay on average by 3.5 d in PUD patients.

Indexed as

Endoscopic submucosal dissectionEndoscopyGastrointestinal bleedingPeptic ulcer

Identifiers

PMID38680197
PMCPMC11045352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.