ReviewClinical journal of gastroenterology2020
Current evidence and issues of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms during antithrombotic therapy.
Review in Clinical journal of gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A preoperative risk-scoring model for predicting intraoperative hemorrhage during endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Prevention of Delayed Bleeding after Endoscopic Resection using Gel Hemostatic Powder: A Multicentric Open-lapel Prospective Study.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Meta-analysis of predictive factors for delayed hemorrhage after endoscopic submucosal dissection in early-stage gastric carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and management of oesophageal granular cell tumour: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Rates and risk factors of bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection with continuous warfarin or 1-day withdrawal of direct oral anticoagulants.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric neoplasms is a useful treatment globally. However, postoperative bleeding after gastric ESD is a serious, and sometimes life-threatening complication in patients receiving antithrombotic drugs, because antithrombotic drugs are considered to increase the risk of postoperative bleeding after gastric ESD. In contrast, withdrawal of antithrombotic drugs during the perioperative period increases the risk of thrombotic complications. Guidelines for the management of antithrombotic drugs during the periendoscopic period have been published by different countries, and recent guidelines place greater emphasis on the risk of thromboembolism with the discontinuation of antithrombotic drugs than on the risk of bleeding with the continuation of antithrombotic drugs. Several studies have reported on the validity of these guidelines, and clinical evidence is being established. Most studies reported that gastric ESD under continuation of aspirin or cilostazol did not increase the risk of bleeding, whereas heparin replacement was strongly associated with a higher risk of bleeding. However, the data regarding some clinical issues about the management of antithrombotic drugs, such as the safety of gastric ESD under continuation of thienopyridine, administration of multiple antithrombotic drugs including dual antiplatelet and anticoagulants (warfarin and direct oral anticoagulant), and effective prophylactic methods for postoperative bleeding after gastric ESD are lacking. Larger clinical data are needed to resolve the remaining issues in the future.
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.