Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42811940›Full record

ArticleClinical endoscopy2026

Safety and effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil plus glue vs. direct endoscopic glue injection for the treatment of gastric varices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zahid Ijaz Tarar, Mustafa Gandhi, Umer Farooq, Gopala K Konduri, Ahmad Zain, Zohaib Ahmed, Baltej Singh, Ryan J Law, Nirav Thosani

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Zahid Ijaz TararDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA. drzahidejaz@hotmail.com.
Mustafa GandhiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA.
Umer FarooqDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Gopala K KonduriDepartment of Medicine, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA.
Ahmad ZainDepartment of Medicine, UCHealth Parkview Medical Center, Pueblo, CO, USA.
Zohaib AhmedDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Baltej SinghDepartment of Medicine, Christiana Care Union Hospital, Elkton, MD, USA.
Ryan J LawDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nirav ThosaniCenter for Interventional Gastroenterology at UTHealth (iGUT), McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough endoscopic glue injection is the conventional first-line treatment for gastric variceal (GV) bleeding, a large body of evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided coil and glue injections. We compared the safety and efficacy of these two modalities.

methodsA random-effects model was used for the pooled estimates. The outcomes of interest were the odds of technical success, GV obliteration, adverse events, rebleeding, reintervention, and pulmonary embolization (PE).

resultsEight studies involving 659 patients (EUS-guided coil+glue, n=200; endoscopic glue, n=459) were included in the meta-analysis. The rebleeding (odds ratio [OR], 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.51; I2=0%) and reintervention (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15-0.52; I2=0%) rates were significantly lower in the EUS-guided coil+glue. EUS-guided coil+glue group had higher rates (OR, 4.56; 95% CI, 2.04 -10.19; I2=30%) of GV obliteration after the first session. No difference in the odds of technical success (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 0.50-8.22; I2=0%), adverse events (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.44-3.20; I2=45%), abdominal pain (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.36-3.82; I2=44%) fever (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.41-2.92; I2=0%), PE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19-1.47; I2=0%) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.32-1.40; I2=0%) was identified.

conclusionsEUS-guided coil and glue injections are safe and effective for the treatment of gastric varices.

Indexed as

CyanoacrylatesEndoscopic ultrasound-guided coilEsophageal and gastric varicesHemorrhageMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID42811940
PMCPMC13624758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.