ArticleBMJ open2026
Use of clips to prevent delayed post-polypectomy bleeding in non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDelayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) remains a significant complication of endoscopic resection, contributing to morbidity and increased healthcare costs. Although prophylactic clipping is widely practised to mitigate this risk, evidence from recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) regarding its efficacy is inconsistent. This protocol outlines a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic clips following thermal resection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 10 February 2026, to identify RCTs comparing prophylactic clips vs no clips in patients undergoing thermal endoscopic resection of non-pedunculated polyps. The primary outcome is DPPB within 30 days, defined as overt bleeding requiring medical intervention or a haemoglobin decrease ≥2 g/dL. Secondary outcomes include DPPB in proximal large (≥20 mm) lesions, perforation, post-polypectomy syndrome and procedure time. Data synthesis will use a random-effects model. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Publication bias will be visualised using funnel plots. We will quantify the effect of potential effect modifiers by meta-regression if appropriate. The quality of evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251246840.
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.