ArticleGut and liver2015
Is a second-look endoscopy necessary after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasm?
Article in Gut and liver, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of the aspiration method in preventing delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Optimal procedure-related hospitalization using clinical pathway protocols following gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Observational
- Efficacy, Safety, and Overall Quality of Life of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Colorectal Cancer in Elderly Patients.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2017Article
- Usefulness of the Forrest Classification to Predict Artificial Ulcer Rebleeding during Second-Look Endoscopy after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Clinical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Second-look endoscopy and factors associated with delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsSecond-look endoscopy is performed to check for the possibility of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) bleeding and to perform prophylactic hemostasis in most hospitals; however, there is little evidence about the efficacy of second-look endoscopy. We investigated whether second-look endoscopy after ESD is useful in the prevention of post-ESD bleeding.
methodsA total of 550 lesions with gastric epithelial neoplasms in 502 patients (372 men and 130 women) were treated with ESD between August 18, 2009 and August 18, 2010. After the exclusion of three lesions of post-ESD bleeding within 24 hours, 547 lesions (335 early gastric cancers and 212 gastric adenomas) were included for the final analysis.
resultsThe occurrence rate of delayed post-ESD bleeding was not significantly differ-ent between the second-look group and the no second-look group (1% vs 2.5%, p>0.05). The only predictor of delayed bleeding was tumor size, regardless of second-look endoscopy after ESD (22.8±9.87 vs 15.1±10.47, p<0.05). There was no difference between the prophylactic hemostasis and nonprophylactic hemostasis groups, including the occurrence rate of delayed bleeding. In the second-look group with prophylactic hemostasis, the hospital stay was more prolonged than in the second-look group without prophylactic hemostasis, but there was no significant difference (p=0.08).
conclusionsSecond-look endoscopy to prevent delayed bleeding after ESD provides no significant medical benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.