ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Observable score for bleeding after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is insufficient evidence regarding the management of hematochezia after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) without endoscopic hemostasis. Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop an observable score for hematochezia after colorectal EMR. Design: Retrospective study. Methods: This retrospective study included three hospitals in Japan. During the study period, colorectal EMR was performed in 3989 patients (11,414 lesions). Post-EMR hematochezia (delayed bleeding (DB)) was observed in 169 patients (512 lesions). Of these, 47 patients (150 lesions) were classified into the Hemostasis Group, comprising those who underwent endoscopic hemostasis. The remaining 122 (362 lesions) were classified into the non-hemostasis group, comprising those who underwent endoscopy without hemostasis, received preventive hemostasis, and did not undergo emergency endoscopy. Weighted points were assigned to predict observable cases following colorectal EMR through multivariate logistic regression analysis, enabling the development of a predictive model. Results: The prediction model comprised three variables (male gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status 3, direct oral anticoagulant). According to the definition, the total score was categorized as lowly observable (2 or 3 points) and highly observable (0 or 1 points) for DB after colorectal EMR. As a result, the rates of observable cases for each risk category were 45.7% and 81.8%, respectively. The model showed good discrimination ability from the c-statistic (95% CI) of 0.71 (0.63-0.79). Conclusion: Although further prospective studies are necessary to validate the utility of the score, it may be useful in clinical practice.
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.