ArticleCureus2025
Descriptive Analysis of COVID-19 Patients Who Required Endoscopic Evaluation for Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage has been reported in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Although there is consensus that the infection is associated with GI sequelae, controversy remains regarding its clinical significance. Endoscopic intervention was limited during the pandemic due to safety concerns and resource constraints, which may have hindered a full assessment of the impact of GI hemorrhage on patient outcomes. This paper aims to evaluate the outcomes of patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and concurrent clinically significant GI hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 125 patients (69 male, 56 female) over the age of 18, with signed procedural consent, were included. All met the criteria for a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and underwent diagnostic endoscopic intervention. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test with Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM Corp., Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).
resultsThe overall hospital length of stay was 8 ± 6 days. A subset analysis compared patients requiring ICU admission with those who did not. The average ICU length of stay was 13 ± 6 days, compared to 5 ± 3 days for non-ICU patients. Among patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 65% (70/108) required intervention, while 16% (3/19) of colonoscopies required intervention. There was no significant difference in underlying comorbidities or rates of non-invasive mechanical ventilation between groups. Overall mortality was 50% (62/125), with no significant difference between ICU (26/50) and non-ICU (36/75) patients (52% vs. 48%).
conclusionsWhile studies have indicated an increased risk of GI complications in SARS-CoV-2 patients, many have not differentiated between hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic sequelae or accounted for the level of care. We conclude that there was higher mortality among patients requiring endoscopic intervention, regardless of their level of care or patient-specific factors.
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.