SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Endoscopic therapies for colonic diverticular bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimColonic diverticular bleeding (CDB) is a common cause of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Several endoscopic modalities are used for treating CDB, including through-the-scope (TTS) clip, endoscopic band ligation (EBL), endoscopic detachable snare ligation (EDSL), and over-the-scope-clip (OTSC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic treatment options for CDB.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The proportion meta-analysis calculated the pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with subgroup analyses based on endoscopic treatment modalities. A P-value < 0.10 was considered statistically significant for subgroup differences.
resultsWe included 21 observational studies (3,161 participants). The pooled rate of successful hemostasis using endoscopic treatment was 98.90% (95% CI 97.66-99.75%), with no significant subgroup differences (P = 0.64). However, significant treatment interactions were observed for early rebleeding, late rebleeding, procedure time, and need for transcatheter arterial embolization or surgery, with TTS clip consistently associated with worse outcomes. The EDSL subgroup had the highest rate of overall adverse events (2.15%; 95% CI 0.02-6.27%). There were no significant differences among the treatment modalities regarding length of hospital stay or mortality.
conclusionEndoscopic treatment for CDB achieved high rates of immediate hemostasis across all modalities. While TTS clips were associated with worse outcomes across several effectiveness measures, there were no significant differences among the endoscopic treatment modalities regarding length of hospital stay or mortality. Adverse events were more frequently reported with EDSL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41466134What 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.