ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Endoscopic band ligation alone and combined with clipping for colonic diverticular bleeding: Retrospective comparative study.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clipping alone or endoscopic band ligation (EBL) alone are the main endoscopic hemostatic methods for colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). We have established a novel method combining EBL and clipping (EBL-C) for hemostasis of CDB (Endoscopy E-videos); this study evaluated its usefulness. From March 2019 to July 2024, we endoscopically treated 138 patients for CDB at our institution. We retrospectively compared two groups: those treated with EBL (n = 24) and those treated with EBL-C (n = 56). Risk factors for early rebleeding were also examined in the EBL-C group. The rate of early rebleeding (defined as rebleeding occurring within 30 days) was lower in the EBL-C group than in the EBL group, although this difference was only marginally non-significant (8.9% vs. 25.0%,
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.