1. 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 (January 2003)
DOI: /mge
Copyright © 2003 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Terms and Conditions

2. 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  , 62-67DOI: ( /mge )
Copyright © 2003 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Terms and Conditions

3. 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  , 62-67DOI: ( /mge )
Copyright © 2003 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Terms and Conditions

4. 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  , 62-67DOI: ( /mge )
Copyright © 2003 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Terms and Conditions