ReviewDEN open2026
Updated evidence on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment for colonic diverticular bleeding.
Review in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Direct visualization-guided endoscopic management of complex colonic diverticular disease: a proof-of-concept case series.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Minimum colonoscopy observation time for colonic diverticular bleeding: A new benchmark based on the 5% plateau time.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2020, multiple large-scale studies (CODE BLUE-J) in Japan have accelerated the accumulation of evidence on colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). This review summarizes the latest findings regarding CDB epidemiology and endoscopic hemostasis. Recent data show that CDB has become the most common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding in Japan, driven by an aging population and the increased use of antithrombotic medications. Although 70%-90% of patients achieve spontaneous hemostasis, rebleeding occurs in up to 35% of cases within 1 year. Despite an overall mortality rate of < 1%, patients with CDB can present with hypovolemic shock and may require urgent intervention. There are no effective pharmacological treatments for controlling CDB. Therefore, endoscopic therapy plays a crucial role in its management. Based on available evidence, both clipping and endoscopic band ligation are considered effective initial treatments. Recent studies indicate that direct clipping reduces early rebleeding compared with indirect clipping, while endoscopic band ligation achieves lower rebleeding rates (13%-15%) than clipping. The choice between direct clipping and endoscopic band ligation depends on the diverticulum location and the presence of active bleeding. Newer techniques, such as over-the-scope clip and self-assembling peptide application, have shown potential, but require further study. The detection of the bleeding source remains challenging because accurate identification is essential for successful hemostasis. Additional research is needed to refine the endoscopic diagnostic and therapeutic techniques, prevent rebleeding, and improve patient outcomes.
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.