Role of Sucralfate in Promoting Healing of Post Band Variceal Ulcer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The role of Sucralfate to be slightly superior to placebo in accelerating the healing process of oesophageal ulcerations after sclerotherapy had been elicited. Currently, its role in the healing process of oesophageal ulcerations after ligation has not been clarified.Objectives: to assess the use of sucralfate after variceal band ligation and to clarify its role in healing of post variceal band ligation ulcers. Methods: Sixty two patients with oesophageal varices eligible for band ligation represented the population of the study. The patients were allocated into two groups: Group I (study group): Included 31 patients in whom endoscopic band ligation was done then received sucralfate 1 gm every 6 hours for 2 weeks. Group II (control group): Included 31 patients in whom endoscopic band ligation was done then received placebo every 6 hours for 2 weeks. Results: During the follow up endoscopy, 2 weeks after band ligation we observed that: All post-banding ulcers in both groups were superficial, 12 patients (38.7%) in the study group developed post-band ulcers versus 23 patients (74.2%) in the control group with a statistically significant difference (p-value, 0.005). Also, there was a statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the size of the post banding ulcers as the mean size of ulcers was 2.7 mm ± 1.2 in study group whereas it was 3.8mm ± 1.7 in control group with P value (0.043).Conclusion: Sucralfate has a significant role in decreasing the rate of occurrence of variceal post-banding ulcers and as well their size. Key words: Endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL); Sucralfate; Clinical pharmacy
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".