ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
A Conceptual Bi-Dimensional Risk Assessment Framework in Bleeding Peptic Ulcers.
Review in Journal of clinical 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peptic ulcer disease remains one of the leading causes of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Despite advances in endoscopic therapy and pharmacological management, recurrent bleeding continues to represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Risk stratification is traditionally based on endoscopic stigmata according to the Forrest classification; however, ulcers with similar endoscopic findings may exhibit markedly different clinical outcomes. Increasing evidence suggests that ulcer-related anatomical factors, including size, location, and depth of penetration, may influence the risk of severe or recurrent hemorrhage, particularly in cases involving adjacent arterial structures. In this conceptual, hypothesis-generating review, we propose a conceptual bi-dimensional framework integrating endoscopic and anatomical determinants of bleeding risk. This approach aims to improve patient stratification by identifying a subgroup at "very-high-risk" of recurrent bleeding, in whom standard endoscopic therapy alone may be insufficient. Although this framework is hypothesis-generating and not yet validated, it may provide a conceptual basis for future studies aimed at improving individualized management strategies, including early imaging assessment and consideration of transarterial embolization in selected high-risk patients.
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.