Outcome of endoscopic treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding: Is a second look necessary? A meta-analysis Riccardo Marmo, MD, Gianluca Rotondano, MD, Maria Antonia Bianco, MD, Roberto Piscopo, MD, Antonio Prisco, MD, Livio Cipolletta, MD Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages 62-67 (January 2003) DOI: 10.1067/mge.2003.48 Copyright © 2003 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Terms and Conditions
Fig. 1 Risk of recurrent bleeding: cumulative meta-analysis of second-look endoscopy with retreatment versus no retreatment. Odds ratio = 0.64 (95% CI [0.44, 0.95]). Number needed to treat = 16 (95% CI [9, 75]). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003 57, 62-67DOI: (10.1067/mge.2003.48) Copyright © 2003 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Terms and Conditions
Fig. 2 Risk of surgery: cumulative meta-analysis (odds ratio) of second-look endoscopy with retreatment versus no retreatment. Odds ratio = 0.68 (95% CI [0.35, 1.3]). Number needed to treat = 58 (95% CI [−64, 28]). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003 57, 62-67DOI: (10.1067/mge.2003.48) Copyright © 2003 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Terms and Conditions
Fig. 3 Risk of death: cumulative meta-analysis (odds ratio) of second-look endoscopy with retreatment versus no retreatment. Odds ratio = 0.80 (95% CI [0.42, 1.54]). Number needed to treat = 97 (95% CI [−25, 53]). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2003 57, 62-67DOI: (10.1067/mge.2003.48) Copyright © 2003 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Terms and Conditions