ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2026
Efficacy of hemostatic powder for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (NVGIB) is a critical situation and needs immediate resuscitation therapy. Hemostatic powder (HP) is an effective way to achieve hemostasis. Objectives: This study compares the outcomes of HP and conventional therapies (CT) for NVGIB patients. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources and methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and other medical databases up to August 2024. This meta-analysis includes studies that reported data on rebleeding, hemostasis, and hospital stays. Using a random-effect model, we analyzed the odds ratios (OR) of the outcomes between the HP and CT groups. Results: Nine RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this study, comprising data from 796 patients. HP demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in achieving hemostasis compared to CT, with an OR of 2.73 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-6.80; Conclusion: Both HP and CT effectively manage NVGIB with similar rebleeding rates, but HP demonstrates superior immediate hemostasis, offering a critical advantage in acute bleeding control. Meta-analysis registration: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) with registration number CRD42024523237.
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.