ArticlePloS one2016
A Novel Fixation Method for Variable-Sized Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Specimens: An In Vitro Animal Experiment.
Article in PloS one, 2016. 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.
- Gauze extension method for specimens resected by endoscopic submucosal dissection.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2022Article
- Identification and external validation of a novel miRNA signature for lymph node metastasis prediction in submucosal-invasive gastric cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection is considered a curative and minimally invasive treatment for early gastric cancer; however, precise pathologic assessment of resected specimens is required to develop further treatment plans. Human error during specimen handling can affect objective assessment of resected specimens. In this study, we investigated whether a novel tissue fixation device offered more objective and standardized pathologic evaluation than conventional manual tissue fixation.
methodsWe developed a novel tissue fixation device for endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens. Two circular tissue samples 2, 3, and 4 cm in diameter were obtained from the body of 45 porcine stomachs. One specimen sample was placed in a fixation device; the other was manually fixed on corkboard. We used a pressure indicator to ensure constant pressure in the resected specimens in the fixation device. We measured submucosal diameter and thickness after 24 hr.
resultsThe diameters for 2, 3, and 4 cm resected tissue samples were 23.85, 32.30, and 45.0 mm and 21.0, 32.0, and 44.50 mm for the fixation device and manual pinning groups, respectively. The submucosal thicknesses in the fixation device group were 397.09, 381.43, and 415.51 μm and 393.76, 529.69, and 603.82 μm by manual pinning for 2, 3, and 4 cm tissue samples, respectively. Analysis of standard deviation revealed that the submucosal thickness in the manual fixation group was much more variable than in the fixation device group (p = 0.012, 0.042, and 0.001 for 2, 3, and 4 cm tissue specimens, respectively; Fligner-Killeen test of homogeneity of variances).
conclusionsAmong variously sized resected tissue specimens, submucosal thicknesses were more variable in the conventional fixation group, while the thicknesses were comparatively consistent in the fixation device group. After endoscopic submucosal dissection, pathologic preparation using this fixation device could offer more objective assessment of specimens.
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.