ArticleClinical endoscopy2025
Pre-endoscopy erythromycin versus metoclopramide for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role of prokinetic drugs prior to endoscopy in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the limited head-to-head trials comparing the outcomes of pre-endoscopy erythromycin and metoclopramide for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), a network meta-analysis (NMA) and component NMA were conducted.
methodsA comprehensive review of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing pre-endoscopy erythromycin or metoclopramide for UGIB with or without gastric lavage (GL) to placebo and/or GL. The primary outcome was the adequate visualization of the mucosa. The secondary outcomes were endoscopy visualization score, endoscopy duration, diagnosis established at initial endoscopy, second-look endoscopy, blood transfusions, mortality, and duration of hospitalization.
resultsA total of 16 studies (1,447 patients) were included. No significant differences were observed between erythromycin and metoclopramide in all the outcomes, but erythromycin had significantly better outcomes than the control group in terms of endoscopic visualization score (standardized mean difference, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.91), adequate mucosal visualization (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.18-2.04), second-look endoscopy, transfusion requirements, and duration of hospitalization. Component network meta-analysis revealed that erythromycin, but not metoclopramide or GL, provided significantly better endoscopic visualization than the placebo.
conclusionsErythromycin should be considered before UGIB endoscopy. The current data do not support the use of metoclopramide or GL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.