ReviewGut and liver2015
Review of Pure Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract.
Review 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.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Retrospective Comparison of Endoscopic Full-Thickness Versus Laparoscopic or Surgical Resection of Small (≤ 5 cm) Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Article
- Endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2017Review
- Novel and safer endoscopic cholecystectomy using only a flexible endoscope via single port.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) using flexible endoscopy has attracted attention as a minimally invasive surgical method that does not cause an operative wound on the body surface. However, minimizing the number of devices involved in endoscopic, compared to laparoscopic, surgeries has remained a challenge, causing endoscopic surgeries to gradually be phased out of use. If a flexible endoscopic full-thickness suturing device and a counter-traction device were developed to expand the surgical field for gastrointestinal-tract collapse, then endoscopic full-thickness resection using NOTES, which is seen as an extension of endoscopic submucosal dissection for full-thickness excision of tumors involving the gastrointestinal-tract wall, might become an extremely minimally invasive surgical method that could be used to resect only full-thickness lesions approached by the shortest distance via the mouth. It is expected that gastroenterological endoscopists will use this surgery if device development is advanced. This extremely minimally invasive surgery would have an immeasurable impact with regard to mitigating the burden on patients and reducing healthcare costs. Development of a new surgical method using a multi-purpose flexible endoscope is therefore considered a socially urgent issue.
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.