{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["11(3)"],"submitter":["Deliwala SS"],"pubmed_abstract":["<b>Background and study aims </b> Hemospray (TC-325) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties designed for use in various gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) scenarios. We conducted a systematic review & meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TC-325 to standard endoscopic therapy (SET) for non-variceal GIB (NVGIB). <b>Methods </b> Multiple databases were searched through October 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to determine pooled relative risk (RR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for primary hemostasis, hemostasis failure, 30-day rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), and need for rescue interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using I <sup>2</sup> %. <b>Results </b> Five RCTs with 362 patients (TC-325 178, SET 184) -"],"journal":["Endoscopy international open"],"pagination":["E288-E295"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10038751"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials."],"pmcid":["PMC10038751"],"pubmed_authors":["Chandan S","Adler D","Dahiya DS","Mohan BP","Bapaye JA","Kassab LL","Ramai D","Facciorusso A","Reddy N","Deliwala SS","Khan S","Chawla S"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Hemostatic spray (TC-325) vs. standard endoscopic therapy for non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","description":"<b>Background and study aims </b> Hemospray (TC-325) is a mineral powder with adsorptive properties designed for use in various gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) scenarios. We conducted a systematic review & meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TC-325 to standard endoscopic therapy (SET) for non-variceal GIB (NVGIB). <b>Methods </b> Multiple databases were searched through October 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to determine pooled relative risk (RR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for primary hemostasis, hemostasis failure, 30-day rebleeding, length of stay (LOS), and need for rescue interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using I <sup>2</sup> %. <b>Results </b> Five RCTs with 362 patients (TC-325 178, SET 184) -","dates":{"release":"2023-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2023 Mar","modification":"2025-04-18T17:19:40.594Z","creation":"2025-04-07T04:52:48.969Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC10038751","cross_references":{"pubmed":["36968978"],"doi":["10.1055/a-2032-4199"]}}