ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Advancing hemostasis: A meta-analysis of novel
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic metal titanium clip and local injection hemostasis for acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding: a meta-analysis.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Successful resection of a subepithelial tumor at the duodenal bulbo-descending junction by endoscopic submucosal excavation.Endoscopy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is a life-threatening condition requiring prompt and effective hemostasis. Various endoscopic interventions, including novel hemostatic powders (HP), over-the-scope clips (OTSC), and traditional approaches, have been employed to manage upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Despite advancements, comparative efficacy and safety of these modalities remain uncertain.
aimTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of novel hemostatic interventions compared to conventional endoscopic techniques for managing UGIB.
methodsCochrane, MEDLINE, PubMed and Scopus libraries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to October 2024. Only RCTs comparing novel interventions, such as HP or OTSC, with conventional endoscopic treatments computed tomography (CT) were included. The primary outcome was the 30-day rebleeding rate. Secondary outcomes included initial hemostasis, short-term rebleeding rates, need for salvage therapy (surgical/angiographic), 30-day all-cause mortality, and bleeding-related mortality. We performed pairwise and network meta- analyses for all treatments.
resultsSeventeen studies were included in this analysis. Regarding the 30-day rebleeding rate, OTSC and HP showed superior efficacy compared with CT [OTSC
conclusionThis meta-analysis highlights OTSC as the most effective intervention for reducing 30-day and short-term rebleeding rates in NVUGIB, surpassing both CT and HP, supporting OTSC as a preferred first-line treatment for NVUGIB, while HP and CT remain viable alternatives. Further studies are needed to explore long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
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.