The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta–Analysis of Endoscopic Variceal Ligation for Primary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding
Open accessAbstract
Despite publication of several randomized trials of prophylactic variceal ligation, the effect on bleeding–related outcomes is unclear. We performed a meta–analysis of the trials, as identified by electronic database searching and cross–referencing. Both investigators independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and abstracted data from each trial. Standard meta–analytic techniques were used to compute relative risks and the number needed to treat (NNT) for first variceal bleed, bleed–related mortality, and all–cause mortality. Among 601 patients in 5 homogeneous trials comparing prophylactic ligation with untreated controls, relative risks of first variceal bleed, bleed–related mortality, and all–cause mortality were 0.36 (0.26–0.50), 0.20 (0.11–0.39), and 0.55 (0.43–0.71), with respective NNTs of 4.1, 6.7, and 5.3. Among 283 subjects from 4 trials comparing ligation with β–blocker therapy, the relative risk of first variceal bleed was 0.48 (0.24–0.96), with NNT of 13; however, there was no effect on either bleed–related mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.61; confidence interval [CI], 0.20–1.88) or all–cause mortality (RR, 0.95; CI, 0.56–1.62). In conclusion, compared with untreated controls, prophylactic ligation reduces the risks of variceal bleeding and mortality. Compared with β–blockers, ligation reduces the risk for first variceal bleed but has no effect on mortality. Prophylactic ligation should be considered for patients with large esophageal varices who cannot tolerate β–blockers. Subsequent research should further compare ligation and β–blockers to determine the effect on mortality, and measure ligation's cost–effectiveness.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. L., & Roberts, R. S. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198806303182605 · Cited by 1,681
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
Laine, L., & Cook, D. (1995) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-123-4-199508150-00007 · Cited by 705
Endoscopic Sclerotherapy as Compared with Endoscopic Ligation for Bleeding Esophageal Varices
Stiegmann, G. V., Goff, J. S., Michaletz-Onody, P. A., Korula, J., Lieberman, D., Saeed, Z. A., Reveille, R. M., Sun, J. H., & Lowenstein, S. R. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199206043262304 · Cited by 694
A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials
Berlin, J. A., Laird, N. M., Sacks, H. S., & Chalmers, T. C. (1989) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780080202 · Cited by 420
Comparison of Endoscopic Ligation and Propranolol for the Primary Prevention of Variceal Bleeding
Sarin, S. K., Lamba, G. S., Kumar, M., Misra, A., & Murthy, N. S. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199904013401302 · Cited by 364
Pagliaro, L., D'Amico, G., Sörensen, T. I. A., Lebrec, D., Burroughs, A. K., Morabito, A., Tiné, F., Politi, F., & Traina, M. (1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-117-1-59 · Cited by 313
Lui, H. F., Stanley, A. J., Forrest, E. H., Jalan, R., Hislop, W. S., Mills, P. R., Finlayson, N. D. C., Macgilchrist, A. J., & Hayes, P. C. (2002) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/gast.2002.35385 · Cited by 184
Cited by
Yankaskas, J. R., Marshall, B. C., Sufian, B., Simon, R. H., & Rodman, D. (2004) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.125.1_suppl.1s · Cited by 579
Sanyal, A. J., Banas, C., Sargeant, C., Luketic, V. A., Sterling, R. K., Stravitz, R. T., Shiffman, M. L., Heuman, D., Coterrell, A., Fisher, R. A., et al. (2006) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.21103 · Cited by 522
Best practice guidance for the diagnosis and management of cystic fibrosis-associated liver disease
Debray, D., Kelly, D., Houwen, R., Strandvik, B., & Colombo, C. (2011) · Journal of Cystic Fibrosis · doi:10.1016/s1569-1993(11)60006-4 · Cited by 432
Vilar-Gomez, E., Lou, Z., Kong, N., Vuppalanchi, R., Imperiale, T. F., & Chalasani, N. (2020) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.04.017 · Cited by 75
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Imperiale, T. F., & Chalasani, N.
- Venue
- Hepatology
- Published
- 2001-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 802-807
- ISSN
- 0270-9139 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2066963931
- Cited by
- 323
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 14.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: A Meta–Analysis of Endoscopic Variceal Ligation for Primary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1053/jhep.2001.23054
- The paper
- Imperiale, T. F., & Chalasani, N. (2001). A Meta–Analysis of Endoscopic Variceal Ligation for Primary Prophylaxis of Esophageal Variceal Bleeding. Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhep.2001.23054
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.
