Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2026
The role of improved endoscopic purse-string suturing for high-risk peptic ulcer hemorrhage: A randomized controlled pilot study.
Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 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
ObjectivePeptic ulcer hemorrhage is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the role of improved endoscopic purse-string suturing for the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage.MethodsThis prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind study was conducted at two institutions; we compared the improved endoscopic purse-string suturing with the technique of monopolar hemostat forceps with soft coagulation for the treatment of peptic ulcer hemorrhage. The primary outcome was the post-procedural re-bleeding rate. The secondary outcomes included initial hemostat success rate, adverse events, volume of transfused blood, cost of hospital stay, and length of hospital stay.ResultsIn total, 114 patients were included in the study, and each patient was randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 treatment groups (each group, n = 57). Procedure time, re-bleeding rates, initial hemostat success rates, duration of hospital stay, volume of transfused blood, and cost of hospital stay were similar between the two groups (
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.