ArticleGut and liver2015
Second-look endoscopy after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection for reducing delayed postoperative bleeding.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of various anti-ulcer medications after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Optimal procedure-related hospitalization using clinical pathway protocols following gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis study evaluated the role of a second-look endoscopy after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients without signs of bleeding.
methodsBetween March 2011 and March 2012, 407 patients with gastric neoplasms who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection for 445 lesions were retrospectively reviewed. After the patients had undergone endoscopic submucosal dissection, they were allocated to two groups (with or without second-look endoscopy) according to the following endoscopy. The postoperative bleeding risk of the lesions was not considered when allocating the patients.
resultsThe delayed postoperative bleeding rates did not differ between the two groups (with vs without second-look endoscopy, 3.0% vs 2.1%; p=0.546). However, a tumor in the upper-third of the stomach (odds ratio [OR], 5.353; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.075 to 26.650) and specimen size greater than 40 mm (OR, 4.794; 95% CI, 1.307 to 17.588) were both independent risk factors for delayed postoperative bleeding. Additionally, second-look endoscopy was not related to reduced delayed postoperative bleeding. However, delayed postoperative bleeding in the patients who did not undergo a second-look endoscopy occurred significantly earlier than that in patients who underwent a second-look endoscopy (4.5 and 14.0 days, respectively, p=0.022).
conclusionsA routine second-look endoscopy after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection is not necessary for all patients.
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.