ArticleMedicine2026
Comparison of the long-term effects of digestive endoscopy variceal ligation and propranolol in preventing variceal rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis.
Article in Medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the long-term effects of endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) and propranolol in preventing variceal rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with hepatitis B-related liver cirrhosis and class A Child-Pugh scores who received either EVL (n = 51) or propranolol (n = 53) for variceal rebleeding prevention. Baseline characteristics, hemodynamic parameters, variceal rebleeding frequency, complications, quality-of-life scores, and mortality rates were compared between the 2 treatment groups using appropriate statistical methods. The EVL group demonstrated significantly lower 1-year (0.17 vs 0.21, P = .001), 2-year (0.31 vs 0.37, P < .001), and 3-year (0.48 vs 0.62, P < .001) variceal rebleeding frequency compared with the propranolol group. Hemodynamically, EVL was associated with lower portal pressure, higher heart rate, lower blood pressure, and higher cardiac output. Analysis of complications revealed a lower incidence of ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, portal vein thrombosis, drug-related side effects, and infections in the EVL group. Quality-of-life assessment showed higher scores for emotional well-being and physical functioning in the EVL group. The study findings suggest that EVL may offer superior long-term efficacy and safety in preventing variceal rebleeding compared with propranolol in patients with liver cirrhosis and esophageal varices. These results have important implications for treatment decisions and the overall management of patients with liver cirrhosis, with the potential to improve long-term outcomes and reduce the burden of complications associated with this condition.
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.