Efficacy and safety of gastroscopic hemostasis in the treatment of acute gastric hemorrhage: A meta-analysis

Table 1 General information of the included studies

Ref.	Year of publication	Country	Study type	Experimental group				Control group				Study dates	Risk of bias	Outcomes
				Sample size	Age (yr)	Male/female	Intervention methods	Sample size	Age (yr)	Male/female	Intervention methods
Sheibani et al[16]	2013	United States	Retrospective analysis	14	57 ± 12	/	Gastroscopy hemostasis	18	57 ± 12	/	Drug hemostasis	2005.1-2012.1	Low	1, 2, 3
Zheng[17]	2017	China	Retrospective analysis	30	55.1 ± 9.8	19/11	Emergency gastroscopy hemostasis	47	56.2 ± 11.0	31/16	Drug hemostasis	2011.3-2016.1	High	1, 2, 3, 7
Zhang[18]	2018	China	RCT	32	55.47 ± 12.31	18/14	Emergency gastroscopy hemostasis	32	56.17 ± 11.62	19/13	Drug hemostasis	2015.1-2017.3	Low	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Long[19]	2019	China	RCT	36	58.95 ± 5.21	20/16	Emergency gastroscopy hemostasis	36	58.75 ± 5.62	21/15	Drug hemostasis	/	Unclear	1, 2
Qi et al[20]	2019	China	RCT	40	56.45 ± 3.23	/	Emergency gastroscopy hemostasis	40	56.45 ± 3.23	/	Drug hemostasis	2017.12-2018.12	Low	1
Ren et al[12]	2021	China	RCT	93	49 ± 3.01	54/38	Emergency gastroscopy hemostasis	88	47 ± 3.83	47/41	Drug hemostasis	2018.9-2020.9	Low	1, 2
Xiang[21]	2021	China	RCT	34	54.45 ± 2.15	19/15	Gastroscopy hemostasis	34	54.63 ± 2.26	18/16	Drug hemostasis	2019.8-2020.12	Unclear	1, 5, 6
Zhang et al[22]	2021	China	RCT	49	56.6 ± 4.76	31/18	Gastroscopy hemostasis	49	56.55 ± 4.71	29/20	Drug hemostasis	2018.10-2019.10	Low	3, 4, 5, 6, 7

1: Hemostasis success rate; 2: Rebleeding rate; 3: Operational transfer rate; 4: Patient’s serum C-reactive protein level; 5: Serum interleukin-6 level; 6: Serum tumor necrosis factor-α level; 7: Quality of life improvement rate. RCT: Randomized controlled trial.