ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2026
Over-the-scope clips versus standard endoscopic therapy as first-line treatment for bleeding peptic ulcer disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of translational 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peptic ulcer bleeding remains a significant cause of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). While over-the-scope clips (OTSC) are increasingly used as rescue therapy, their efficacy as first-line treatment remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OTSC compared to standard endoscopic therapy (SET) as a first-line treatment in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 13, 2026. Studies comparing OTSC and SET in bleeding PUD were included. Primary outcome was Clinical Success. Secondary outcomes included primary and technical success, need for surgery or re-therapy, mortality, hospital stay, and adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results: Six studies [3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 3 observational] comprising 454 patients were included. OTSC significantly improved clinical success [risk ratio (RR) =1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.27, P=0.002]. OTSC also significantly reduced overall bleeding (RR =0.46, 95% CI: 0.25-0.82, P=0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in primary success, technical success, 7- or 30-day rebleeding, need for re-therapy, surgical intervention, in-hospital mortality, total mortality, adverse events, or hospital stay. Conclusions: OTSC is associated with significantly higher clinical success and lower overall bleeding rates compared to SET in bleeding PUD. Secondary outcomes, including rebleeding, re-intervention, and mortality, trended in favour of OTSC but did not reach statistical significance, likely reflecting limited power. These findings support OTSC as a promising first-line option. Further large-scale RCTs are warranted to confirm these results and guide clinical implementation.
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.