Phase-specific comparative effectiveness of local epistaxis interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 1Medical College of Qinghai University
- 2Qinghai University Affiliated Hospital
Abstract
Background Local epistaxis studies often conflate failure of initial hemostatic control with bleeding after apparent control. Methods We systematically reviewed randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of local nonoperative epistaxis interventions. Outcomes were harmonized into acute failure (0–3 h) and post-hemostasis rebleeding windows (> 3 h to 7 days, > 7 days to < 6 months, and ≥ 6 months). Arm-based generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) provided the primary time-harmonized framework; window-specific network and direct pairwise meta-analyses served as supportive analyses. Results Fifty-three studies provided 196 study-arm records across 15 intervention-group nodes. In the acute window, non-absorbable packing, topical hemostatic biomaterial, and tranexamic acid had the lowest predicted hemostatic-failure range. In post-hemostasis windows, radiofrequency coagulation, microwave ablation, laser therapy, and electrocautery showed the most stable low-risk rebleeding profile, whereas no treatment and packing-based strategies more often occupied higher-risk ranges. Anchor-time predictions suggested lower risk at 24 h, rising through 72 h and 7 days, remaining higher at 1 and 3 months, and declining by 6 months; radiofrequency coagulation was the clearest exception. GLMMs, window-specific network meta-analysis, and direct pairwise evidence broadly reproduced the main comparative directions, although network certainty was limited. Conclusions Local epistaxis interventions appeared to follow phase-specific rather than fixed comparative patterns. Treatments linked to favorable immediate control were not necessarily those linked to the lowest later rebleeding risk. Because several later-window comparisons used sparse, mixed-design, or selected-population evidence, the findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating signals for phase-specific comparative trials, not as evidence for immediate practice change. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD420251230572.
Related
- Comparative effectiveness of exercise and self-management interventions delivered through different modes of digital support on pain and patient-reported physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Exercise-Based Interventions for Improving Balance in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis With GRADE Certainty of Evidence.
- Comparative effectiveness of digital health interventions for low back pain: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Effectiveness of dynamic neuromuscular stabilization-based interventions for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Effectiveness of multicomponent interventions for children and adolescents with overweight or obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BibTeX
@article{wang2026phasespecific,
title = {{Phase-specific comparative effectiveness of local epistaxis interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis}},
author = {Chaohua Wang and Chaofan Li and Fan Song and Rou Xue and Bin Guo},
journal = {European Journal of Medical Research},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s40001-026-04947-z},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-026-04947-z},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Phase-specific comparative effectiveness of local epistaxis interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Chaohua Wang
AU - Chaofan Li
AU - Fan Song
AU - Rou Xue
AU - Bin Guo
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - European Journal of Medical Research
DO - 10.1186/s40001-026-04947-z
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-026-04947-z
AB - Background Local epistaxis studies often conflate failure of initial hemostatic control with bleeding after apparent control. Methods We systematically reviewed randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of local nonoperative epistaxis interventions. Outcomes were harmonized into acute failure (0–3 h) and post-hemostasis rebleeding windows (> 3 h to 7 days, > 7 days to < 6 months, and ≥ 6 months). Arm-based generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) provided the primary time-harmonized framework; window-specific network and direct pairwise meta-analyses served as supportive analyses. Results Fifty-three studies provided 196 study-arm records across 15 intervention-group nodes. In the acute window, non-absorbable packing, topical hemostatic biomaterial, and tranexamic acid had the lowest predicted hemostatic-failure range. In post-hemostasis windows, radiofrequency coagulation, microwave ablation, laser therapy, and electrocautery showed the most stable low-risk rebleeding profile, whereas no treatment and packing-based strategies more often occupied higher-risk ranges. Anchor-time predictions suggested lower risk at 24 h, rising through 72 h and 7 days, remaining higher at 1 and 3 months, and declining by 6 months; radiofrequency coagulation was the clearest exception. GLMMs, window-specific network meta-analysis, and direct pairwise evidence broadly reproduced the main comparative directions, although network certainty was limited. Conclusions Local epistaxis interventions appeared to follow phase-specific rather than fixed comparative patterns. Treatments linked to favorable immediate control were not necessarily those linked to the lowest later rebleeding risk. Because several later-window comparisons used sparse, mixed-design, or selected-population evidence, the findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating signals for phase-specific comparative trials, not as evidence for immediate practice change. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD420251230572.
SN - 2047-783X
ER -