ArticleScientific reports2021
Differences between two sodium hyaluronate-based submucosal injection materials currently used in Japan based on viscosity analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- The Comparison Between Low- and High-Concentration Injection Solution Ability for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Trial
- Functional hydrogels as submucosal injectable materials in therapeutic endoscopy.Biomedical engineering letters · 2026Review
- Review of the role of submucosal injection materials in digestive endoscopy.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- A novel self-assembling peptide as new submucosal injection solution in endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Japan, two 0.4% sodium hyaluronate (HA)-based submucosal injection materials (SIMs) are currently used in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): MucoUp (HA-Mc) and Ksmart (HA-Ks). HA-Mc and HA-Ks have the same concentration and are, thus, construed by most endoscopists to have no difference. Nevertheless, visual observation conveys the impression that HA-Ks have a higher viscosity than HA-Mc, suggesting that HA-Ks performs better than HA-Mc. This study aimed to examine the differences between HA-Mc and HA-Ks. HA-Ks exhibited higher viscosity due to greater weight-average molecular weight compared with HA-Mc. HA-Ks had significantly greater submucosal elevation height (SEH) than HA-Mc; the SEH of HA-Ks-80% (80% dilution of HA-Ks) was the same as that of HA-Mc. The ESD procedure time was significantly shorter with HA-Ks than with HA-Mc (15.2 ± 4.1 vs. 19.5 ± 5.9; P = 0.049). The total injection volume for HA-Ks was significantly lower than that for HA-Mc (10.8 ± 3.6 vs. 14.4 ± 4.6; P = 0.045). However, no significant difference in these items was observed between HA-Mc and HA-Ks-80%. HA-Mc and HA-Ks were considered to be almost the same. Nonetheless, HA-Ks exhibited higher viscosity and SIM performance than HA-Mc. HA-Ks-80% had almost the same performance as HA-Mc. Thus, understanding SIM performance and characteristics requires a focus on the viscosity of SIMs.
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.