The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Endoscopic hemostasis. An effective therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers
Abstract
We performed a meta-analysis of 25 randomized control trials that compared endoscopic hemostasis with standard therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer. For recurrent or continued bleeding, the mean rate in control patients was 0.39, and the pooled rate difference, or reduction due to therapy, was 0.27 +/- 0.15 (95% confidence interval) (69% relative reduction). For emergency surgery, the mean rate in control patients was 0.26, and the pooled rate difference was 0.16 +/- 0.05 (62% relative reduction). Most important, for overall mortality, the mean rate in control patients was 0.10, and the pooled rate difference was 0.03 +/- 0.02 (30% relative reduction). The effects were greatest in patients with spurting or visible blood vessels and equivocal when the ulcer showed only signs of recent bleeding. We conclude that endoscopic hemostasis is clearly effective but that data were insufficient for direct comparisons between modalities. Randomized control trials to compare the different modes of endoscopic therapy should continue.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
Endoscopic therapy for acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: A meta-analysis
Cook, D. J., Guyatt, G. H., Salena, B. J., & Laine, L. A. (1992) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/0016-5085(92)91793-4 · Cited by 733
Laine, L., & Peterson, W. L. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199409153311107 · Cited by 719
Lau, J. Y. W., Sung, J. J. Y., Lee, K. K. C., Yung, M.-Y., Wong, S. K. H., Wu, J. C. Y., Chan, F. K. L., Ng, E. K. W., You, J. H. S., Lee, C. W., et al. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200008033430501 · Cited by 699
Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P., & Schmid, C. H. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)08468-7 · Cited by 655
Weir, C. J., Murray, G. D., Dyker, A. G., & Lees, K. R. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7090.1303 · Cited by 522
Metadata
- Authors
- Sacks, H. S.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1990-07-25
- Volume
- 264
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 494-499
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058929384
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Endoscopic hemostasis. An effective therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.264.4.494
- The paper
- Sacks, H. S. (1990). Endoscopic hemostasis. An effective therapy for bleeding peptic ulcers. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.264.4.494
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
