Vasoactive Agents for the Management of Variceal Bleeding: A Mixed Treatment Comparison Network Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vasoactives such as terlipressin, somatostatin, vasopressin, octreotide and nitrates are commonly used to treat variceal bleeding. The present study is a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the above vasoactive agents for treating variceal bleeding. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for appropriate randomized clinical trials evaluating vasoactives in cirrhotic patients with variceal bleeding. Random-effects model was used to generate the pooled estimates. Mortality was the primary outcome and bleeding control, re-bleeding rate, hospital stay, blood transfusion requirements and adverse events were the secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Fifty randomized clinical trials were included of which 37 were included for the primary outcome. The overall analysis did not reveal any significant difference in the mortality risk between any of the vaso-active drugs except for terlipressin that had statistically significant benefits from direct pooled estimates. Somatostatin and terlipressin showed significant reduction in the mortality risks at 24 h. Terlipressin significantly reduced re-bleeding rate; somatostatin and vasopressin were associated with better hemostasis; and terlipressin and vasopressin significantly reduced the requirement for blood transfusion. Terlipressin, vasopressin and glyceryltrinitrate/vasopressin were also associated with increased risk of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Terlipressin could be the best agent in the vasoconstrictor category for managing variceal bleeding. Somatostatin and vasopressin can serve as alternatives.
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 | 0.025 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".