ArticleThe Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research2024
The Time of Endoscopy for Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Observational Study.
Article in The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Timing of endoscopy and its impact on prognosis in patients admitted to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- The Optimal Timing of Endoscopy in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding-The Sooner, the Better?The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2024Article
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
Objectives: In cases of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), endoscopic intervention within the first 24 hours is widely recommended. However, data on the efficacy of urgent endoscopy are limited. Here, we used the Glasgow-Blatchford score to assess bleeding outcomes based on time-to-endoscopy. Methods: Prospectively collected multicenter data, which included 1554 patients with NVUGIB, were retrospectively reviewed between February 2011 and December 2013. Based on time-to-endoscopy, patients were grouped into the early (<24 hours) versus the delayed (≥24 hours) group and the urgent (<6 hours) versus the nonurgent (≥6 hours) group. The rates of re-bleeding, mortality, secondary intervention, transfusion, and morbidity aggravation were analyzed. Results: The mean time-to-endoscopy and median Glasgow-Blatchford score were 33.0±75.5 hours and 12 (range: 1-23), respectively. Univariate analyses revealed that in the delayed endoscopy group, the transfusion and re-bleeding rates were higher (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.257, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.026-1.540) and lower (HR: 0.610, 95% CI: 0.413-0.901), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that delayed endoscopy was a significant factor for lower re-bleeding rate (HR: 0.576, 95% CI: 0.387- 0.859), which was prominent in the low-risk group (HR: 0.417, 95% CI: 0.225-0.774). Multivariate analysis showed that when compared with the low-risk group, in-hospital comorbidity aggravation was more common in high-risk patients who underwent non-urgent endoscopy (HR: 2.957, 95% CI: 1.045-6.454). Conclusions: In low-risk patients, delayed endoscopy is sufficient for NVUGIB management. In high-risk patients, urgent endoscopy reduced comorbidity aggravation during hospital care.
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.