ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2019
Novel technique for endoscopic
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2019. 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.
- Sodium Alginate-Based Submucosal Lifting Hydrogel for Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Article
- A novel postgraduate endoscopic course using a large animal model of secondary Crohn's disease stricture.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Efficacy and safety of grasping forceps-assisted endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms: A multi-centre retrospective study.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic
aimTo develop a modified endoscopic
methodsEMR+ was considered as modified grasp and snare technique. For simultaneous use of a grasping and cutting device a novel additional working channel was used (AWC
resultsConcept of EMR+ was first developed
conclusionEMR+ appeared to be effective and safe and was easy and fast to perform in the porcine model. EMR+ needs to be further evaluated clinically in comparative trials.
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.