The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dual Therapy Versus Monotherapy in the Endoscopic Treatment of High-Risk Bleeding Ulcers: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no definite recommendation on the use of dual endoscopic therapy in patients with severe peptic ulcer bleeding. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine whether the use of two endoscopic hemostatic procedures improved patient outcomes compared with monotherapy. METHODS: A search for randomized trials comparing dual therapy (i.e., epinephrine injection plus other injection or thermal or mechanical method) versus monotherapy (injection, thermal, or mechanical alone) was performed between 1990 and 2006. Heterogeneity between studies was tested with chi(2) and explained by metaregression analysis. RESULTS: Twenty studies (2,472 patients) met inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, dual endoscopic therapy reduces the risk of recurrent bleeding (OR [odds ratio] 0.59 [0.44-0.80], P= 0.0001) and the risk of emergency surgery (OR 0.66 [0.49-0.89], P= 0.03) and showed a trend toward a reduction in the risk of death (OR 0.68 [0.46-1.02], P= 0.06). Subcategory analysis showed that dual therapy was significantly superior to injection therapy alone for all the outcomes considered, but failed to demonstrate that any combination of treatments is better than either mechanical therapy alone (OR 1.04 [0.45-2.45] for rebleeding, 0.49 [0.50-4.87] for surgery, and 1.28 [0.34-4.86] for death) or thermal therapy alone (OR 0.67 [0.40-1.20] for rebleeding, 0.89 [0.45-1.76] for surgery, and 0.51 [0.24-1.10] for death). CONCLUSIONS: Dual endoscopic therapy proved significantly superior to epinephrine injection alone, but had no advantage over thermal or mechanical monotherapy in improving the outcome of patients with high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
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
Meta‐Analysis in Medical Research: The Handbook for the Understanding and Practice of Meta‐Analysis
(2005) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470994894 · Cited by 687
Consensus Recommendations for Managing Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Barkun, A., Bardou, M., Marshall, J. K., & for the Nonvariceal Upper GI Bleeding Consensus Conference Group* (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-139-10-200311180-00012 · Cited by 544
Barkun, A., Sabbah, S., Enns, R., Armstrong, D., Gregor, J., Fedorak, R. N. N., Rahme, E., Toubouti, Y., Martel, M., Chiba, N., et al. (2004) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30272.x · Cited by 376
Calvet, X., Vergara, M., Brullet, E., Gisbert, J. P., & Campo, R. (2004) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2003.11.006 · Cited by 256
Jensen, D. M., Kovacs, T. O. G., Jutabha, R., Machicado, G. A., Gralnek, I. M., Savides, T. J., Smith, J., Jensen, M. E., Alofaituli, G., & Gornbein, J. (2002) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/gast.2002.34782 · Cited by 223
Cited by
Barkun, A. N., Bardou, M., Kuipers, E. J., Sung, J., Hunt, R. H., Martel, M., Sinclair, P., & for the International Consensus Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Conference Group* (2010) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-2-201001190-00009 · Cited by 1,163
Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines
Tarasconi, A., Coccolini, F., Biffl, W. L., Tomasoni, M., Ansaloni, L., Picetti, E., Molfino, S., Shelat, V., Cimbanassi, S., Weber, D. G., et al. (2020) · World Journal of Emergency Surgery · doi:10.1186/s13017-019-0283-9 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Marmo, R., Rotondano, G., Piscopo, R., Bianco, M. A., D'Angella, R., & Cipolletta, L.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 279-289
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-0241
- OpenAlex
- W2022889473
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 4.04
- 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: Dual Therapy Versus Monotherapy in the Endoscopic Treatment of High-Risk Bleeding Ulcers: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.01023.x
- The paper
- Marmo, R., Rotondano, G., Piscopo, R., Bianco, M. A., D'Angella, R., & Cipolletta, L. (2007). Dual Therapy Versus Monotherapy in the Endoscopic Treatment of High-Risk Bleeding Ulcers: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.01023.x
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.
