ArticleDEN open2027
Efficiency and Safety of Endoscopic Injection Sclerotherapy With Ligation for Esophageal Varices: A Retrospective Study.
Article in DEN open, 2027. 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.
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
Objectives: Endoscopic injection sclerotherapy with ligation (EISL) is a combined endoscopic treatment that involves endoscopic injection sclerotherapy (EIS) and endoscopic variceal ligation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of conventional EIS and EISL in treating esophageal varices and the usefulness of EISL. Methods: A total of 104 cases treated with conventional EIS and 44 cases treated with EISL for esophageal varices were included in the study. The procedure duration, intra-injection volume, and para-injection volume, the success rate of intravascular injection based on variceal type, recurrence-free survival, and post-treatment adverse events were assessed. Results: The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the EISL group (13.1 ± 7.2 min) than in the conventional EIS group (20.7 ± 8.0 min; Conclusions: Compared with conventional EIS, EISL required shorter procedure times and reduced paravariceal leakage of the injected sclerosant. EISL also demonstrated higher success rates, particularly for small varices, and fewer post-treatment adverse events.
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.