{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0248565965583174, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0038240917782026767, 'mean_word_length': 5.1647058823529415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dual Versus Endoscopic Monotherapy in Bleeding Peptic Ulcers

TO THE EDITOR: We read with great interest the meta-analysis by Marmo et al. (1) comparing dual endoscopic therapy with monotherapy in the treatment of high-risk bleeding ulcers. The study clearly proves that dual therapy is more efficacious than monotherapy. This finding is in agreement with our earlier meta-analysis demonstrating that adrenaline plus a second hemostatic procedure is better than adrenaline injection alone for high-risk bleeding ulcers (2).