Harold Benites-Goñi, Jessica Alférez-Andía, Alejandro Piscoya, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, Adrian V Hernandez
{"title":"急性消化性溃疡出血患者内镜止血后常规二次内镜检查的疗效：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Harold Benites-Goñi, Jessica Alférez-Andía, Alejandro Piscoya, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, Adrian V Hernandez","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.</p>","PeriodicalId":35807,"journal":{"name":"Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru : organo oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterologia del Peru","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Harold Benites-Goñi, Jessica Alférez-Andía, Alejandro Piscoya, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, Adrian V Hernandez\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru : organo oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterologia del Peru\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru : organo oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterologia del Peru\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de gastroenterologia del Peru : organo oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterologia del Peru","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB).
Materials and methods: We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach.
Results: Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses.
Conclusions: Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.
期刊介绍：
La REVISTA DE GASTROENTEROLOGíA DEL PERÚ, es la publicación oficial de la Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú que publica artículos originales, artículos de revisión, reporte de casos, cartas e información general de la especialidad; dirigido a los profesionales de la salud con especial interés en la gastroenterología. La Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú es una publicación de periodicidad trimestral y tiene como objetivo la publicación de artículos científicos inéditos en el campo de la gastroenterología, proporcionando información actualizada y relevante de la especialidad y áreas afines. La Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú publica artículos en dos idiomas, español e inglés, a texto completo en la versión impresa yelectrónica. Los artículos científicos son sometidos a revisores o árbitros nacionales e internacionales, especialistas que opinan bajo la modalidad de doble ciego y de manera anónima sobre la calidad y validez de los mismos. El número de revisores depende del tipo de artículo, dos revisores como mínimo para artículos originales y uno como mínimo para otros tipos de artículos.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
