ReviewClinical endoscopy2026
Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: advances and future directions in management.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous clinical guidelines have been developed for the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB), yet significant variations exist among the recommendations. This review summarizes the most recent evidence on NVUGIB management, structured across four key stages: pre-endoscopic management, endoscopic treatment, post-endoscopic care, and the identification and management of refractory bleeding. In the pre-endoscopic phase, several risk-scoring systems have been developed to predict mortality. A restrictive transfusion strategy, with a threshold of 7 to 8 g/dL, is now recommended for most patients. Pre-endoscopic administration of intravenous erythromycin also improves visualization during endoscopy. A wide array of endoscopic hemostasis techniques is available, with the choice of method depending on the underlying cause of bleeding. When endoscopic hemostasis fails, transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) is generally preferred over surgery as the second-line intervention. Once hemostasis is achieved, high-dose acid suppression is essential, and the risk of rebleeding should be assessed. For patients who experience rebleeding, repeat endoscopic therapy is recommended as the first-line approach. However, determining the optimal timing for TAE remains a challenge. Because of the heterogeneity of clinical presentations, NVUGIB management should be personalized. Further research is needed to establish evidence-based, individualized treatment strategies.
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.