Role of mucoprotective agents in endoscopic submucosal dissection‐derived ulcers: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, it is still unclear whether adding a mucoprotective agent to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) results in better outcomes compared with using a PPI alone in patients with post-gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) ulcers. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of PPI alone versus combination treatment in healing of post-gastric ESD ulcers, as well as on delayed bleeding and amount of blood transfused. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, up until May 2017, for randomized trials comparing PPI alone versus PPI plus a mucoprotective drug in achieving ulcer healing in patients undergoing gastric ESD was performed. The primary outcome is scarring stage on endoscopic assessment at 4 or 8 weeks after gastric ESD. RESULTS: From an initial 3071 citations, eight articles (n = 953 lesions from 934 patients) were analyzed. Patients receiving combination treatment achieved a scarring stage significantly more often than those on a PPIs alone at 4 or 8 weeks after ESD, (risk ratio = 1.36, 95% CI; 1.06-1.75). No study reported amount of blood transfused. There were no significant between treatment-group differences in terms of delayed bleeding (risk ratio = 0.58, 95% CI; 0.17-1.99). Neither location of ulcer nor Helicobacter pylori infection was related to ulcer scarring stage. CONCLUSION: The limited evidences suggested combination treatment may be more effective in accelerating the process of ulcer healing in patients undergoing gastric ESD than the use of PPI alone, but does not appear to alter delayed bleeding risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".