Commentary on “The clinical utility and outcomes of hemospray as primary versus salvage therapeutic modality for endoscopic hemostasis: A retrospective cohort study”
- DOI
- 10.1177/10815589261483672
- Published
- 2026-08-27
- Container
- Journal of Investigative Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Open access
- unknown
Credibility signals
uncertain Score 64/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- supportingDOI registered: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- supportingDOI resolves: A matching record was returned by Crossref.
- not scoredDirectory of Open Access Journals: No matching DOAJ record was present in this response. No allow-list match; this is not evidence of low credibility.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredOpen access status: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- supportingMetadata completeness: All 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.1177/10815589261483672,
title = {Commentary on “The clinical utility and outcomes of hemospray as primary versus salvage therapeutic modality for endoscopic hemostasis: A retrospective cohort study”},
author = {Sheldon S. Smith and Andrew T. Mertz and Jerome C. Edelson},
year = {2026},
journal = {Journal of Investigative Medicine},
doi = {10.1177/10815589261483672},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/10815589261483672}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Commentary on “The clinical utility and outcomes of hemospray as primary versus salvage therapeutic modality for endoscopic hemostasis: A retrospective cohort study” AU - Sheldon S. Smith AU - Andrew T. Mertz AU - Jerome C. Edelson PY - 2026 JO - Journal of Investigative Medicine DO - 10.1177/10815589261483672 UR - https://doi.org/10.1177/10815589261483672 ER -
APA
Smith, S. S., Mertz, A. T., & Edelson, J. C. (2026). Commentary on “The clinical utility and outcomes of hemospray as primary versus salvage therapeutic modality for endoscopic hemostasis: A retrospective cohort study”. Journal of Investigative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/10815589261483672
Source records
- crossref · retrieved 2026-09-26T17:35:34.123Z