ArticleClinical endoscopy2026
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil and glue embolization is superior to endoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection for gastric varices: a propensity-matched analysis from India.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pathophysiological management of gastric varices: From hemodynamics to targeted therapies.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2026Review
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
backgroundEndoscopic cyanoacrylate glue injection (END-G) is the recommended therapy for gastric varices; however, endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil and glue embolization (EUS-C+G) is increasingly utilized. This study compared the efficacy and safety of END-G and EUS-C+G.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with gastric varices who underwent variceal obliteration. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance baseline variables. The primary outcome was variceal obliteration at 4 weeks, and the secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), bleeding, ascites, and mortality. Predictors of incomplete obliteration were assessed using END-G.
resultsA total of 442 patients were included. In the matched cohort (n=71/group), EUS-C+G achieved higher obliteration rates than those of END-G (95.8% vs. 64.8%, p<0.001) with a low glue volume (median 1.5 mL vs. 2.5 mL, p<0.001). AEs were more frequent with EUS-C+G (25.4% vs. 8.5%, p=0.007), although they were generally mild and managed conservatively. The rates of bleeding, ascites, and 4-week mortality were similar between groups. Subgroup analysis showed the superiority of EUS-C+G in patients with isolated fundal varices (93.1% vs. 50.0%) and in secondary prophylaxis (95.0% vs. 53.3%), although with high AEs. Portal vein thrombosis (odds ratio, 154.086) and a varix size ≥18 mm (odds ratio, 2.664) predicted incomplete obliteration with END-G.
conclusionsEUS-C+G provides superior short-term obliteration compared with END-G, although with increased but milder AEs. Careful patient selection and expertise are essential.
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.