The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2021
Open accessAbstract
MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow–Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3–5 days. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (a) PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (b) High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
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
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305 · cited 1×
“New evidence on each key question was summarized in evidence tables (Table 3 s), using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system [3].”
Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation
Granger, C. B., Alexander, J. H., McMurray, J. J. V., Lopes, R. D., Hylek, E. M., Hanna, M., Al-Khalidi, H. R., Ansell, J., Atar, D., Avezum, A., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1107039 · Cited by 8,943 · cited 1×
“In the ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for the Prevention of Stroke in Subjects with Atrial Fibrillation) trial, the rate of major bleeding was 2.13% per year with the use of apixaban and 3.09% with that of warfarin (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.60 – 0.80; P <0.001) [190].”
InfluentialBalanced crystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults.
Semler, M. W., Self, W. H., Wanderer, J. P., Ehrenfeld, J. M., Wang, L., Byrne, D. W., Stollings, J. L., Kumar, A. B., Hughes, C. G., Hernandez, A., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1711584 · Cited by 1,433
Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people
Lewis, S. R., Pritchard, M. W., Evans, D. J., Butler, A. R., Alderson, P., Smith, A. F., & Roberts, I. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000567.pub7 · Cited by 315
Staerk, L., Lip, G. Y. H., Olesen, J. B., Fosbøl, E. L., Pallisgaard, J. L., Bonde, A. N., Gundlund, A., Lindhardt, T. B., Hansen, M. L., Torp-Pedersen, C., et al. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h5876 · Cited by 146
Cited by
Gralnek, I. M., Camus Duboc, M., Garcia-Pagan, J. C., Fuccio, L., Karstensen, J. G., Hucl, T., Jovanovic, I., Awadie, H., Hernandez-Gea, V., Tantau, M., et al. (2022) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/a-1939-4887 · Cited by 283
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gralnek, I. M., Stanley, A. J., Morris, A. J., Camus, M., Lau, J., Lanas, A., Laursen, S. B., Radaelli, F., Papanikolaou, I. S., Cúrdia Gonçalves, T., Dinis-Ribeiro, M., Awadie, H., Braun, G., de Groot, N., Udd, M., Sanchez-Yague, A., Neeman, Z., & van Hooft, J. E.
- Venue
- Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2021-02-10
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 300-332
- ISSN
- 0013-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1438-8812
- OpenAlex
- W3126301722
- Cited by
- 626
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 69.22
- 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: Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2021. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/a-1369-5274
- The paper
- Gralnek, I. M., Stanley, A. J., Morris, A. J., Camus, M., Lau, J., Lanas, A., Laursen, S. B., Radaelli, F., Papanikolaou, I. S., Cúrdia Gonçalves, T., Dinis-Ribeiro, M., Awadie, H., Braun, G., de Groot, N., Udd, M., Sanchez-Yague, A., Neeman, Z., & van Hooft, J. E. (2021). Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2021. Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1369-5274
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.