ReviewCureus2024
Should Prophylactic Endotracheal Intubation Be Performed in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding?
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No consensus exists on the standard of intraoperative airway management approach to prevent endoscopy complications in acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Eight years after our initial meta-analysis, we reassessed the effect of prophylactic endotracheal intubation in acute GI bleeding in hospitalized patients. Multiple databases were reviewed in 2024, identifying 10 studies that compared prophylactic endotracheal intubation (PEI) versus no intubation in acute upper GI bleeding in hospitalized patients. Outcomes of interest included pneumonia, length of hospital stay, aspiration, and mortality. The odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) using the random effects model was calculated for each outcome. In total, 11 studies (10 retrospective, one prospective) were included in the meta-analysis (n = 7,332). PEI demonstrated statistically significant higher odds of pneumonia (OR = 5.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.15-10.79; p < 0.01) and longer length of stays (MD = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.12-1.56; p = 0.02). However, mortality (OR = 1.68; 95% CI = 0.78-3.64; p = 0.19) and aspiration (OR = 2.79; 95% CI = 0.89-8.7; p = 0.08) were not statistically significant. PEI before esophagogastroduodenoscopy for hospitalized upper GI bleeding patients is associated with an increased incidence of pneumonia within 48 hours and prolonged hospitalization but no statistically significant increased risk of mortality or aspiration.
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.