The use of cap-mounted clips as a primary hemostatic modality in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cap-mounted-clips, especially Over-The-Scope-Clip (OTSC™), are recommended for recurrent nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). There has been recent interest in their use as an initial hemostatic modality. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing cap-mounted clips' efficacy as a primary hemostatic modality in NVUGIB. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases up to April 2024 identified RCTs comparing cap-mounted clips to standard endoscopic therapy (SET) as a primary hemostatic modality in NVUGIB. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of further bleeding (persistent or recurrent) at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included persistent bleeding at index endoscopy and 30-day rebleeding, individually. Other pertinent outcomes were also recorded. A meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled risk ratios (RRs), comparing cap-mounted clip to SET. Out of 516 citations, five RCTs (n = 555), all assessing OTSC™, were included. RESULTS: The composite outcome of further bleeding was lower with cap-mounted clip versus SET (RR = 0.33 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.20-0.54]). There was no difference in persistent bleeding at initial endoscopy (RR = 0.30 [95% CI: 0.07-1.30]), but 30-day rebleeding was lower with cap-mounted clip (RR = 0.38 [95% CI: 0.21-0.70]). There were no differences in other outcomes. Grading of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: Cap-mounted clips may be an efficacious primary hemostatic modality, associated with a lower further bleeding at 30 days compared to SET in NVUGIB. However, due to limitations in existing evidence, further research must better characterize an optimal subgroup of patients benefiting most from this approach before adopting its routine use.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.041 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".