ReviewHepatology forum2026
Duration of vasoconstrictors after endoscopic variceal ligation in acute variceal bleeding: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Hepatology forum, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Studies on the duration of vasoconstrictors after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding (AVB) have shown varying results. The present network meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of vasoconstrictors after EVL based on the therapy duration. Materials and Methods: The electronic databases of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 2024 for randomized studies comparing the duration of vasoconstrictors in AVB after EVL (Group 1: ≤24 hours, Group 2: >24 to ≤72 hours, Group 3: >72 to ≤120 hours). Rebleeding and mortality risk were analyzed using pairwise and network meta-analyses. Results: Eleven studies (n=1,066) met the inclusion criteria. Rebleeding rates varied from 0-38% in Group 1, 2-12% in Group 2, and 0-26% in Group 3. There was no difference in the risk of rebleeding in Group 1 (risk ratio [RR]: 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-3.52) or Group 2 (RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.42-4.54), compared to Group 3. Similarly, there was no difference either in 5-day mortality risk among the groups (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.09-2.52 and 1.08, 95% CI: 0.15-6.43 for Groups 1 and 2, respectively, vs. Group 3) or 30-day mortality risk (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.51-2.51 and 0.98, 95% CI: 0.36-2.52 for Groups 1 and 2, respectively, vs. Group 3). Conclusion: The current network meta-analysis provides no evidence to support the use of vasoconstrictors following EVL. These data suggest that vasoconstrictors can be stopped early after EVL, facilitating early discharge from the hospital.
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.