Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2021
Optimal definition of coagulation syndrome after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a post hoc analysis of randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a predictive scoring model for post-ESD coagulation syndrome in elderly with colorectal LSTs.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Innovative development and validation of a scoring system for predicting electrocoagulation syndrome post-endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Effect of double-layered suturing for mucosal defect closure after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection on postoperative adverse events: a propensity score-matched retrospective study in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEndoscopic clipping closure after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) did not reduce the incidence of post-ESD coagulation syndrome (PECS) in our recent randomized controlled trial (RCT); however, the definition of PECS is still controversial. The aim of this study is to establish optimal definition of PECS with additional analysis of RCT based on another definition.
methodsIn this multicenter, single-blind RCT, individuals were randomly assigned to colorectal ESD followed by endoscopic clipping closure or non-closure. In this post hoc analysis, the definition of PECS was modified as both localized abdominal pain on visual analogue scale and inflammatory response (fever or leukocytosis), from either localized abdominal pain or inflammatory response in the original study. All participants underwent a computed tomography after ESD, and PECS was classified into type I, conventional PECS without extra-luminal air, and type II, PECS with peri-luminal air.
resultsA total of 155 patients (84 in the non-closure group and 71 in the closure group) were analyzed. As a result of criteria modification, 21 type I PECS and four type II PECS cases in the original study, which included patients with clear pain and inflammatory response, were downgraded to no adverse event and simple peri-luminal air, respectively. The frequency of PECS showed no significant difference between non-closure and closure groups.
conclusionClipping closure after colorectal ESD does not reduce the incidence of PECS regardless of the diagnostic criteria. Either localized abdominal pain or inflammatory response might be optimal criteria of PECS (UMIN000027031). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000027031 DATE OF REGISTRATION: April 18, 2017.
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.