Trial reportPloS one2015
Unavoidable human errors of tumor size measurement during specimen attachment after endoscopic resection: a clinical prospective study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic group classifications of gastric neoplasms by endoscopic resection criteria before and after treatment: real-world experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- A Novel Fixation Method for Variable-Sized Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Specimens: An In Vitro Animal Experiment.PloS one · 2016Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveObjective evaluation of resected specimen and tumor size is critical because the tumor diameter after endoscopic submucosal dissection affects therapeutic strategies. In this study, we investigated whether the true tumor diameter of gastrointestinal cancer specimens measured by flexible endoscopy is subjective by testing whether the specimen is correctly attached to the specimen board after endoscopic submucosal dissection resection and whether the size differs depending on the endoscopist who attached the specimen.
methodsSeventy-two patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer who satisfied the endoscopic submucosal dissection expanded-indication guideline were enrolled. Three endoscopists were randomly selected before every endoscopic submucosal dissection. Each endoscopist separately attached the same resected specimen, measured the maximum resection diameter and tumor size, and removed the lesion from the attachment board.
resultsThe resected specimen diameters of the 3 endoscopists were 44.5 ± 13.9 mm (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 23-67), 37.4 ± 12.0 mm (95% CI: 18-60), and 41.1 ± 13.3 mm (95% CI: 20-63) mm. Comparison among 3 groups (Kruskal Wallis H- test), there were significant differences (H = 6.397, P = 0.040), and recorded tumor sizes were 38.3 ± 13.1 mm (95% CI: 16-67), 31.1 ± 11.2 mm (95% CI: 12.5-53.3), and 34.8 ± 12.8 (95% CI: 11.5-62.3) mm. Comparison among 3 groups, there were significant differences (H = 6.917, P = 0.031).
conclusionsHuman errors regarding the size of attached resected specimens are unavoidable, but it cannot be ignored because it affects the patient's additional treatment and/or surgical intervention. We must develop a more precise methodology to obtain accurate tumor size.
trial registrationUniversity hospital Medical Information Network UMIN No. 000012915.
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.