If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
Division of Gastroenterology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USADepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
Studies evaluating the role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in these patients.
Methods
We reviewed several databases from inception to September 15, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine second-look endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD. Our outcomes of interest were recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence.
Results
We included 9 RTCs comprising 1452 patients; 726 patients underwent planned/routine second-look endoscopy and 726 did not. We found no significant difference in recurrent bleeding (RR, .79; 95% CI, .51-1.23), need for surgery (RR, .58; 95% CI, .29-1.15), mortality (RR, .69; 95% CI, .33-1.45), or mean number of units of blood transfused (standardized mean difference, –.06; 95% CI, –.19 to .07). Quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate based on the GRADE framework.
Conclusions
Single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to routine second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD.
Some risk factors for recurrent bleeding include large ulcer size, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, hemodynamic instability, comorbidities, active bleeding at initial endoscopy, and certain ulcer locations such as the posterior duodenal bulb and the lesser curve of the stomach.
In a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 40 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, Saeed et al found that planned second-look endoscopy was associated with a decreased risk of recurrent bleeding. Since then, RCTs comparing planned or routine second-look endoscopy with no routine second-look endoscopy in patients with PUD bleeding have reported conflicting results. Routine second-look endoscopy in patients with PUD bleeding would increase overall costs of care and would predispose patients to the small risk of adverse events from the additional procedure and associated anesthesia or sedation. Therefore, high-quality evidence would be required to justify routine second-look endoscopy.
Previous meta-analyses and guidelines have not made consistent recommendations regarding the use of routine second-look endoscopy. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis is justified to re-evaluate this issue. We conducted this updated systematic review and meta-analysis including all available RCTs published to date to evaluate the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with a bleeding peptic ulcer in whom hemostasis was successfully achieved at the initial endoscopy.
Methods
Data sources and search strategy
We followed the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. An experienced medical librarian (W.L.-S.) performed a comprehensive search of PubMed and MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to September 15, 2020. There was no restriction of language in conducting the search. The search included truncation-expanded key words and database-specific subject headings for second-look endoscopy combined with GI bleed or GI hemorrhage or peptic ulcer bleeding. Full search strategies from all databases are provided in Appendix 1 (available online at www.giejournal.org). Two authors (F.K. and S.S.) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles and excluded those that did not provide data on our outcomes of interest. Full texts of remaining articles were reviewed. We also reviewed the references of these articles to maximize the yield of the search. The screening results are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis flowchart.
Two authors (F.K. and M.A.K.) independently searched for original studies based on pre-established inclusion criteria detailed below. We included only RCTs that compared the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleeding because of PUD. Only those patients who successfully achieved hemostasis on initial endoscopy were included in the analysis. Patients in whom bleeding could not be controlled at the initial endoscopy or in whom the source of bleeding was other than PUD were excluded. We excluded nonrandomized trials and review articles. All articles were downloaded into Endnote X9 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, Penn, USA), a bibliographic database manager. Duplicate citations were removed.
Data extraction
Two authors (F.K. and M.A.K.) independently assessed the eligibility of included studies and collected data using predesigned data extraction forms. The data extracted by individual authors were compared for any discrepancies. Any discrepancy was resolved by a repeat review of data and discussion with a third reviewer (C.W.H.). Extracted data included year of publication, patient demographics, endoscopic treatments performed during first and second endoscopy, any other treatment interventions given to both groups in addition to endoscopy, and number of patients with active bleeding during initial endoscopy and, for each group, total numbers of patients and those with recurrent bleeding, mortality, and need for surgery and the mean number of units of blood transfused, size of ulcers, and length of stay. We also extracted data regarding some possible predictors of outcomes such as patient demographics, Forrest classification, ulcer location, size of ulcer, use of NSAIDs, comorbidity indices, and hemodynamic instability. These data are summarized in Supplementary Table 1 (available online at www.giejournal.org).
Risk of bias assessment
We used the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias for RCTs to assess the quality of included studies. The Cochrane tool assesses the presence of selection bias by evaluating the methods of randomization and allocation concealment; performance and detection biases by checking for blinding of personnel and outcome assessment, respectively; and attrition and reporting bias by evaluating for incomplete and selective reporting of data, respectively. Two authors (D.J. and Z.I.) independently performed risk of bias assessment and any disagreement was discussed with a third reviewer (C.W.H.). The risk of bias assessment of RCTs is summarized in Supplementary Table 2 (available online at www.giejournal.org).
Data synthesis and statistical analysis
Our outcomes of interest were recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. We performed subgroup analyses including full publications only. In 2 included studies,
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
the single endoscopy group received high-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment as an intravenous (IV) bolus followed by continuous IV infusion for 72 hours, whereas the second-look endoscopy group received IV PPI by bolus injection twice a day for 72 hours. We performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding these 2 studies.
We performed a subgroup analysis including only those studies in which endoscopic combination therapy was used in conjunction with IV PPI twice daily. Combining the studies (using endoscopic combination therapy plus IV PPI twice daily) with those in which a single endoscopic treatment modality, IV ranitidine, or high-dose PPI infusion was used could have led to erroneous results. For recurrent bleeding analysis, we performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding 2 studies
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
in which a single endoscopic treatment method was used.
We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare recurrent bleeding, mortality, and need for surgery between groups. We calculated standardized mean difference with 95% CI to compare mean number of units of blood transfused between 2 groups. Some trials included in our meta-analysis had zero events in 1 arm.
We used Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4 for Windows; The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014) for statistical analyses. When RR or odds ratio (OR) is used for analysis, RevMan automatically includes trials with zero events in 1 arm by adding .5 to each arm, but trials with zero events in both arms are omitted.
When studies included zero events in both arms, continuity correction of .5 was applied to both arms to include the zero-event study in pooled estimate.
We used a random effects model for our analyses. A P < .1 for Cochran Q test or an I2 value >50% indicated significant heterogeneity. We assessed publication bias graphically by using funnel plots. We did not use statistical tests to assess for publication bias because the total number of studies we included was below 10.
Assessment of quality of evidence
We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. For systematic reviews, the GRADE approach defines the quality of a body of evidence as the extent to which one can be confident that an estimate of effect or association is close to the quantity of specific interest. It classifies the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. For RCTs, the quality of evidence starts with high confidence; for observational studies, it starts with low confidence. It is further rated based on methodologic quality (risk of bias), directness of evidence, heterogeneity, precision of effect estimates, and publication bias. Details of quality of evidence based on GRADE are summarized in Supplementary Table 3 (available online at www.giejournal.org).
Results
Search strategy yield
The search strategy produced 173 articles, 85 of which were removed as duplicates (Fig. 1). From the remaining 88 articles, 76 were removed after title and abstract review. Three additional studies were identified from review of bibliographies. The full texts of 15 articles were reviewed and included 9 in the final analysis.
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
Lee SYLM, Cho CM, Tak WY, et al. The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005;128:A639.
Effect of programmed endoscopic follow-up examinations on the rebleeding rate of gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers treated by injection therapy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Hemoclip or thermal coagulation and/or epinephrine or fibrin glue injection therapy.
IV PPI q 12 h
Patients aged 18 y who underwent successful endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcers within 24 h after the admission.
Bleeding not controlled at initial endoscopy, no informed consent, bleeding started while already hospitalized with another illness, bleeding from known carcinoma of the stomach or nonulcerative lesions such as Dieulafoy’s lesion.
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
In second-look endoscopy group, esomeprazole .5 mg/kg q 12 h. In control group, 1 mg/kg IV bolus followed by .1 mg/kg/h continuous infusion. In children ≥40 kg and age ≥12 y, standard adult PPI dose was used.
Patients aged between 2 and 18 y who had undergone successful endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcers. Patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with endoscopic stigmata of active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, or adherent clots were recruited.
If the bleeding could not be controlled during the first endoscopy, no informed consent, known allergy to PPI, bleeding from nonulcer lesions, ASA grade V or VI, patients weighing < 10 kg.
Epinephrine injection followed by heat probe or hemoclips
In second-look endoscopy group IV omeprazole q 12 h for 72 h. In single endoscopy group, IV omeprazole 80-mg bolus followed by continuous infusion of 8 mg omeprazole per hour for 72 h.
Patients aged 15-90 y who underwent successful endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcers. Patients with bleeding peptic ulcers with endoscopic stigmata of active bleeding, nonbleeding visible vessels, or adherent clots were recruited to the study.
Bleeding could not be controlled during the first endoscopy, no informed consent, pregnant, known allergy to PPIs, bleeding from carcinoma of the stomach or other nonulcer lesions including Dieulafoy’s lesions or angiodysplasia, ASA grade V or VI.
Lee SYLM, Cho CM, Tak WY, et al. The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005;128:A639.
Patients aged 15-90 y who underwent successful endoscopic hemostasis for bleeding peptic ulcers within 24 h after admission.
Bleeding not controlled at primary endoscopy, no informed consent, bleeding from carcinoma of the stomach or other nonulcer lesions such as Dieulafoy lesions, patients with ASA grade V.
Effect of programmed endoscopic follow-up examinations on the rebleeding rate of gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers treated by injection therapy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
High-risk patients (Baylor bleeding score >5) in whom endoscopic hemostasis was achieved.
Low-risk patients (Baylor bleeding score <5), high-risk patients in whom endoscopic therapy was not indicated, and if initial endoscopic hemostasis was not successful.
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
Lee SYLM, Cho CM, Tak WY, et al. The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005;128:A639.
Effect of programmed endoscopic follow-up examinations on the rebleeding rate of gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers treated by injection therapy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
Nine studies with 1452 patients were included in this analysis; 726 patients each were randomized to the routine second-look endoscopy and control groups. Rates of recurrent bleeding were 9.6% and 12%, respectively (RR, .79; 95% CI, .51-1.23), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 46%) (Fig. 2). The funnel plot appeared to be symmetric (Supplementary Fig. 1, available online at www.giejournal.org). Subgroup analysis including only full publications showed similar results (RR, .94; 95% CI, .58-1.51) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 42%). Sensitivity analysis excluding the studies in which the 2 groups received different PPI regimens
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
did not change the results materially (RR, .69; 95% CI, .40-1.18; I2 = 55%). A subgroup analysis that only included those studies in which endoscopic combination therapy was used in conjunction with IV PPI twice daily also showed similar results (RR, .98; 95% CI, .40-2.37; I2 = 69%). Sensitivity analysis excluding studies in which a single endoscopic treatment method was used also showed similar results (RR, .91; 95% CI, .55-1.52; I2 = 44%). Certainty of evidence was low based on the GRADE framework (Supplementary Table 3).
Figure 2Forest plot to compare recurrent bleeding between groups. CI, Confidence interval.
This analysis included 7 full publications with 1194 patients. Rates of surgery in second-look endoscopy and control groups were 2.2% and 4%, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups (RR, .58; 95% CI, .29-1.15; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3). One study included in this analysis had zero events in both arms. We repeated analysis by applying continuity correction of .5 to both arms in this study, but results did not change (RR, .59; 95% CI, .30-1.16; I2 = 0%). No abstracts were included in this analysis. Sensitivity analysis excluding the studies in which the groups received different PPI regimens
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
also showed similar results (RR, .48; 95% CI, .22-1.06; I2 = 0%). A subgroup analysis that only included the studies in which endoscopic combination therapy was used in conjunction with IV PPI twice daily did not change the results (RR, .51; 95% CI, .11-2.35; I2 = 30%). Certainty of evidence was moderate based on the GRADE framework (Supplementary Table 3).
Figure 3Forest plot to compare need for surgery between groups. CI, Confidence interval.
This analysis included 6 full publications with 1067 patients. Rates of mortality in second-look endoscopy and control groups were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups (RR, .69; 95% CI, .33-1.45; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 4). No abstracts were included in this analysis. Sensitivity analysis excluding the studies in which groups received different PPI regimens
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
also showed similar results (RR, .91; 95% CI, .38-2.21; I2 = 0%). A subgroup analysis that only included the studies in which endoscopic combination therapy was used in conjunction with IV PPI twice daily did not change the results (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, .39-3.42; I2 = 0%). Certainty of evidence was moderate based on the GRADE framework (Supplementary Table 3).
Figure 4Forest plot to compare mortality between groups. CI, Confidence interval.
This analysis included 4 studies with 922 patients. We found no significant difference in mean number of units of blood transfused between groups (standardized mean difference, –.06; 95% CI, –.19 to .07; I2 = 43%) (Fig. 5).
Figure 5Forest plot to compare mean number of units of blood transfused. CI, Confidence interval.
Routine second-look endoscopy does not improve outcomes in patients with acute upper GI bleeding because of PUD in whom hemostasis was successfully achieved at the initial endoscopy. Recommendations from an international consensus group,
do not recommend routine second-look endoscopy in patients with nonvariceal upper GI bleeding. Instead, they recommend its use only for recurrent bleeding. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend considering a repeat endoscopy with treatment as appropriate for all patients at high risk of recurrent bleeding, particularly if there is doubt whether adequate hemostasis was achieved at the first endoscopy.
included 8 RCTs and showed that routine second-look endoscopy was associated with a significant reduction in recurrent bleeding (pooled odds ratio, .55; 95% CI, .37-.81) and need for surgery (pooled odds ratio, .43; 95% CI, .19-.96). The authors concluded that routine second-look endoscopy was effective in the absence of high-dose PPI and in selected patients who were at high risk such as those with active bleeding at the initial endoscopy. However, we did not find any significant difference in the rates of recurrent bleeding or surgery between groups. Additionally, our findings also challenge the results of the previous meta-analysis about the role of second-look endoscopy in the absence of high-dose PPI and in selected patients who were at high risk.
In a meta-analysis including 13 RCTs, Sachar et al
found that intermittent PPI treatment was comparable with a regimen of IV bolus plus continuous infusion in patients with endoscopically treated high-risk bleeding ulcers. We performed a sensitivity analysis excluding 2 studies where the groups received different PPI regimens and found no difference in the rates of recurrent bleeding or surgery among groups. These findings are in line with those of Sachar et al and do not support the routine use of second-look endoscopy in the absence of high-dose IV PPI treatment.
found that second-look endoscopy was not effective in reducing recurrent bleeding (odds ratio, .65; 95% CI, .42-1.00). These studies included patients at high risk of recurrent bleeding. Chiu et al
included high-risk patients based on the Baylor bleeding score. We did not find any significant difference in rate of recurrent bleeding after exclusion of these 2 studies.
The role of second-look endoscopy in patients at high risk of recurrent bleeding has been controversial. Initial recommendations from an Asia Pacific group in 2011
recommended that second-look endoscopy should be reserved for selected patients at high risk of recurrent bleeding. However, this statement was rejected in updated guidelines in 2018
because of a lack of evidence to suggest that any risk stratification method is effective in selecting patients at high risk who would benefit from second-look endoscopy.
One of the strengths of our meta-analysis is its restriction to RCTs only. RCTs are considered the criterion standard for clinical research and represent the highest level of evidence. Our findings remained robust in several predetermined subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Our work also has some limitations. We included 2 studies that were only available as abstracts
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
Lee SYLM, Cho CM, Tak WY, et al. The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005;128:A639.
in which some important data were missing. A Cochrane systematic review has found that over half of abstracts (including a third of RCTs that were initially presented as abstracts) are not subsequently published in full.
However, subgroup analyses excluding the studies available only as abstracts found no substantive change in results. There was moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 46%) in the analysis of recurrent bleeding but low heterogeneity (I2 = 42%) on subgroup analysis excluding the abstracts. The definitions of recurrent bleeding and the type of endoscopic treatments varied across studies. PPI treatment is considered standard of care in patients with acute upper GI bleeding from a peptic ulcer. However, ranitidine was used in 2 studies instead of a PPI.
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
Lee SYLM, Cho CM, Tak WY, et al. The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005;128:A639.
did not provide information about whether any acid-suppressing medicine was used.
We also found evidence of clinical heterogeneity among studies. As is evident from Supplementary Table 1, some predictors of outcomes we assessed were not standardized across studies. Studies did not report comorbidity indices consistently: Different studies reported these in different ways, and some did not report them at all. NSAID use and hemodynamic instability have been identified as risk factors for recurrent bleeding,
and proportions of patients with NSAID use and hemodynamic instability varied across studies. The Rockall score is an important tool that is often used in patients with acute upper GI bleeding to estimate the risk of recurrent bleeding and mortality.
Proportions of patients with distribution of ulcers based on location varied across studies. There were no substantial differences in the proportions of patients based on Forrest classification or patients with active bleeding across studies, except 1 study
that included a higher proportion of patients with active bleeding. Although all studies only included patients in whom successful hemostasis had been achieved on initial endoscopy and excluded those in whom it had not, a formal assessment of endoscopists’ consideration of successful hemostasis was only performed in 1 study.
performed assessment of endoscopists’ estimation of success of initial endoscopic hemostasis using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (absolutely satisfactory) to 4 (absolutely unsatisfactory) and also compared it between groups and found no significant differences. This assessment was not performed in any other studies, which can raise concerns about observer bias because assessment of achievement of hemostasis is subjective.
In conclusion, we found that a single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to scheduled second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery. Our findings lend further support to current guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and an international consensus group
Effect of programmed endoscopic follow-up examinations on the rebleeding rate of gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers treated by injection therapy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
and would support a change in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Based on our analysis, we recommend reserving second-look endoscopy for patients with evidence of recurrent bleeding or those in whom there was concern about the adequacy of hemostasis at the initial endoscopy.
Appendix
Supplementary Figure 1Funnel plot to assess publication bias for the analysis of recurrent bleeding. SE, Standard error; RR, risk ratio.
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
Lee SYLM, Cho CM, Tak WY, et al. The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005;128:A639.
Effect of programmed endoscopic follow-up examinations on the rebleeding rate of gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers treated by injection therapy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
Lee SYLM, Cho CM, Tak WY, et al. The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005;128:A639.
Effect of programmed endoscopic follow-up examinations on the rebleeding rate of gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers treated by injection therapy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
(Esophagoduodenoscop∗ OR EGD OR esophagogastroduodenoscop∗ OR esophago-gastro-duodenoscop∗ OR oesophagogastroduodenoscop∗ OR endoscop∗ OR gastroscop∗ OR duodenoscop∗ OR esophagoscop∗)OR "Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal"[Mesh])
296,129
2
(Upper-gastrointestinal-bleed∗ OR upper-GI-bleed∗ OR upper-Gastrointestinal-Hemorrhage OR upper-digestive-haemorrhage OR upper-digestive-hemorrhage OR upper-digestive-tract-haemorrhage OR upper-digestive-tract-hemorrhage OR Upper-gastrointestinal-tract-bleed∗ OR upper-GI-tract-bleed∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-bleed∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-hemorrhage∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-haemorrhage∗ OR ("Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage"[Mesh] AND (gastric∗ OR gastro∗ OR stomach OR esophagi∗ OR duoden∗)))
50,754
3
Second-look∗ OR "Second-Look Surgery"[Mesh]
5132
4
#1 AND #3
430
5
#2 AND #4
103
6
(randomized controlled trial[pt] OR controlled clinical trial[pt] OR randomized[tiab] OR placebo[tiab] OR drug therapy[sh] OR randomly[tiab] OR trial[tiab] OR groups[tiab] NOT (animals [mh] NOT humans [mh]))
4,220,476∗
7
#5 AND #6
49
8
#7 NOT ("editorial"[Publication Type] OR "guideline"[Publication Type] OR "introductory journal article"[Publication Type] OR "review"[Publication Type] OR "meta analysis"[Publication Type] OR "systematic review"[Publication Type])
'second look∗' OR 'second look surgery'/exp OR '2nd look∗'
7982
2
esophagoduodenoscop∗ OR egd OR esophagogastroduodenoscop∗ OR 'esophago gastro duodenoscop∗' OR oesophagogastroduodenoscop∗ OR endoscop∗ OR gastroscop∗ OR duodenoscop∗ OR esophagoscop∗ OR 'esophagogastroduodenoscopy'/exp
521,125
3
#1 AND #2
964
4
'upper gastrointestinal bleed∗' OR 'upper gi bleed∗' OR 'upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage' OR 'upper digestive haemorrhage' OR 'upper digestive hemorrhage' OR 'upper digestive tract haemorrhage' OR 'upper digestive tract hemorrhage' OR 'upper gastrointestinal tract bleed∗' OR 'upper gi tract bleed∗' OR 'esophagogastroduodenal bleed∗' OR 'esophagogastroduodenal hemorrhage∗' OR 'esophagogastroduodenal haemorrhage∗' OR 'upper gastrointestinal bleeding'/exp OR 'gastrointestinal hemorrhage'/exp OR 'peptic ulcer bleeding'/exp
117,602
5
#3 AND #4
243
6
random∗ OR factorial∗ OR crossover∗ OR 'cross over' OR placebo∗ OR (doubl∗ NEXT/2 blind∗) OR (singl∗ NEXT/2 blind∗) OR assign∗ OR allocat∗ OR volunteer∗ OR 'crossover procedure'/exp OR 'double-blind procedure'/exp OR 'randomized controlled trial'/exp OR 'single-blind procedure'/exp
2,623,171
7
#5 AND #6
76
8
#7 NOT ('conference review'/it OR 'editorial'/it OR 'review'/it)
59
9
#8 NOT ('meta analysis'/de OR 'practice guideline'/de OR 'systematic review'/de)
44
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
Issue 9 of 12, September 2020
21 Trials matching
Second-look∗ in Title Abstract Keyword
AND
(Esophagoduodenoscop∗ OR EGD OR esophagogastroduodenoscop∗ OR esophago-gastro-duodenoscop∗ OR oesophagogastroduodenoscop∗ OR endoscop∗ OR gastroscop∗ OR duodenoscop∗ OR esophagoscop∗) in Title Abstract Keyword
AND
(Upper-gastrointestinal-bleed∗ OR upper-GI-bleed∗ OR upper-Gastrointestinal-Hemorrhage OR upper-digestive-haemorrhage OR upper-digestive-hemorrhage OR upper-digestive-tract-haemorrhage OR upper-digestive-tract-hemorrhage OR Upper-gastrointestinal-tract-bleed∗ OR upper-GI-tract-bleed∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-bleed∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-hemorrhage∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-haemorrhage∗) OR ((bleed∗ OR hemorrhag∗) AND (gastric∗ OR gastro∗ OR stomach OR esophagi∗ OR duoden∗)) in Title Abstract Keyword
AND
"randomized controlled trial" in Publication Type
Query from Web of Science Core Collection
You searched for:
TOPIC: (Second-look∗ OR 2nd-look∗ OR second-therapeutic∗)
AND
TOPIC: ((Esophagoduodenoscop∗ OR EGD OR esophagogastroduodenoscop∗ OR esophago-gastro-duodenoscop∗ OR oesophagogastroduodenoscop∗ OR endoscop∗ OR gastroscop∗ OR duodenoscop∗ OR esophagoscop∗))
AND
TOPIC: ((Upper-gastrointestinal-bleed∗ OR upper-GI-bleed∗ OR upper-Gastrointestinal-Hemorrhage OR upper-digestive-haemorrhage OR upper-digestive-hemorrhage OR upper-digestive-tract-haemorrhage OR upper-digestive-tract-hemorrhage OR Upper-gastrointestinal-tract-bleed∗ OR upper-GI-tract-bleed∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-bleed∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-hemorrhage∗ OR esophagogastroduodenal-haemorrhage∗) OR ((bleed∗ OR hemorrhag∗) AND (gastric∗ OR gastro∗ OR stomach OR esophagi∗ OR duoden∗)))
AND
TOPIC: (random∗ OR factorial∗ OR crossover∗ OR cross-over OR placebo∗ OR (doubl∗ NEAR/2 blind∗) OR (singl∗ NEAR/2 blind∗) OR assign∗ OR allocat∗ OR volunteer∗ OR "crossover procedure" OR "double-blind procedure" OR "randomized controlled trial" OR "single-blind procedure")
Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI.
Continuous esomeprazole infusion versus bolus administration and second look endoscopy for the prevention of rebleeding in children with a peptic ulcer.
Lin CKLK, Lo GH, Cheng JS, et al. The value of second-look endoscopy after endoscopic injection therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer [abstract]. Gastroenterology 1996;110:A177.
Lee SYLM, Cho CM, Tak WY, et al. The effect of second look endoscopy in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005;128:A639.
Effect of programmed endoscopic follow-up examinations on the rebleeding rate of gastric or duodenal peptic ulcers treated by injection therapy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
In the management of bleeding peptic ulcers, endoscopic hemostasis and adjunctive use of acid suppression are the criterion standard.1,2 Despite these treatments, bleeding recurs in a significant proportion of patients. In the United Kingdom audit, 13% of patients experienced recurrent bleeding.3 The mortality in those who required surgery was 29%.3 It is therefore of paramount importance that recurrent bleeding is forestalled.
35118-X&id=fx1.jpg){kind=link}
35118-X&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
35118-X&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}
35118-X&id=gr3.jpg){kind=link}
35118-X&id=gr4.jpg){kind=link}
35118-X&id=gr5.jpg){kind=link}
35118-X&id=fx2.jpg){kind=link}