ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Nonoperative Treatments for Acute Anterior Epistaxis in Emergency and Otolaryngology Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
Acute anterior epistaxis is frequently managed with multiple nonoperative interventions, but comparative evidence regarding their effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of nonoperative treatments for acute anterior epistaxis in emergency and otolaryngology settings. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception through 3 July 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nonoperative hemostatic interventions in adults with acute anterior epistaxis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and random-effects meta-analysis was performed when sufficient clinical comparability was present. Nine RCTs including 1,124 participants were identified, with three trials contributing to quantitative synthesis. Topical tranexamic acid reduced rebleeding within 24 hours compared with matched vehicle controls (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.89), with an absolute risk reduction of 19.1 percentage points. However, topical tranexamic acid was not associated with a significant reduction in further hemostatic intervention (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.22-1.59). Other nonoperative strategies showed variable effects across heterogeneous outcomes. Overall, topical tranexamic acid may reduce early rebleeding in acute anterior epistaxis, but evidence regarding broader clinical outcomes remains limited by the small number of comparable trials, heterogeneous protocols, and inconsistent outcome definitions. Further high-quality randomized trials with standardized outcomes are required to clarify the optimal role of these interventions.
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.