ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Endoscopic treatment modalities for colonic diverticular bleeding: A systematic review with direct and network meta-analyses.
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.
- Endoscopic clip systems for hemostasis and defect closure in gastrointestinal endoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Review
- Colonic diverticular hemorrhage: Etiology, diagnostic challenges, and evolving therapeutic strategies.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is a leading cause of lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage that has a high risk of recurrence. The endoscopic clipping and endoscopic band ligation (EBL) methods are widely used for hemostasis in patients with CDB. Endoscopic detachable snare ligation (EDSL) has also become an increasingly common treatment option. The data remain inconsistent regarding the comparative efficacy of these endoscopic therapies in achieving initial hemostasis and reduction of early and late rebleeding rates.
aimTo study the effectiveness and complications of endoscopic clipping, EBL, and EDSL for CDB.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for clinical trials to find studies that reported CDB and endoscopic clipping, EBL, or EDSL as treatment methods. The pooled estimates of initial hemostasis, early and late rebleeding, and the need for transarterial embolization or surgery between these groups were calculated.
resultsWe analyzed 28 studies with 5224 patients. Of these, 4526 had active CDB and required one of the three endoscopic interventions. The pooled prevalence of early rebleeding was 23.5%, 10.7%, and 10.6% in the endoscopic clipping, EBL, and EDSL groups, respectively. Patients who underwent endoscopic clipping had a significantly higher rate of early rebleeding compared to those who received EBL [odds ratio (OR) = 3.76 (95%CI: 2.13-6.63)] and EDSL (OR = 3.30, 95%CI: 1.28-8.53). There was no difference in the initial hemostasis between the three groups. The pooled prevalence of late rebleeding was 27.2% in the clipping, followed by 13.8% in the EBL and 2.7% in the EDSL group. Compared to 2.6% in the EBL group, 4.0% of patients who received endoscopic clipping subsequently underwent surgery or transarterial embolization. These results were consistent in the network meta-analysis. Based on the ranking of the indirect comparison of modalities, the snare technique was better at achieving initial hemostasis and had a lower late rebleeding rate.
conclusionThe findings of this direct and indirect pairwise comparison suggest that EDSL is superior to endoscopic clipping and EBL in achieving initial hemostasis and lowering the rate of late rebleeding in patients with CDB.
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.