ArticleJPGN reports2024
Haemostatic spray in the management of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in children: A single-centre experience in Singapore.
Article in JPGN reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction/Objectives: Haemostatic spray (HS; Hemospray) is a powder agent for endoscopic haemostasis in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). It has been shown to be effective and easy to administer. However, published data on efficacy and safety in children remain scarce. Our aim was to describe our experience with the use of HS in the management of UGIB. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients aged 0-18 receiving HS for endoscopic haemostasis from January 2017 to December 2021. Information was obtained on demographics, clinical presentation and comorbidities. Outcomes were successful initial haemostasis and rates of re-bleeding. Results: A total of 25 applications of HS occurred in 23 patients. The median patient age was 8 years (range: 4 months to 16 years). HS was used in 17/25 (68%) applications as monotherapy. Other treatments employed were clip application and adrenaline injection. One hundred per cent initial haemostasis was achieved with three (13.0%) patients who experienced re-bleeding. All patients tolerated HS applications with no adverse events. Conclusions: Our finding supports the use of HS in the management of UGIB in children. HS, either as monotherapy or in combination with other conventional therapy, could potentially be the treatment of choice in children with UGIB with its excellent feasibility and good safety profile.
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.