Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34224661›Full record

ArticleClinical endoscopy2022

Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events of Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of the Mid to Upper Stomach under General Anesthesia and Monitored Anesthetic Care.

Jong-In Chang, Tae Jun Kim, Na Young Hwang, Insuk Sohn, Yang Won Min, Hyuk Lee, Byung-Hoon Min, Jun Haeng Lee, Poong-Lyul Rhee, Jae J Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. [Paneth Cell Carcinoma of the Stomach].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jong-In ChangDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Tae Jun KimDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Na Young HwangStatistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Insuk SohnStatistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
Yang Won MinDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Hyuk LeeDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Byung-Hoon MinDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Jun Haeng LeeDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Poong-Lyul RheeDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Jae J KimDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach is a technically challenging procedure. This study compared the therapeutic outcomes and adverse events of ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach performed under general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

methodsBetween 2012 and 2018, 674 patients underwent ESD for gastric tumors in the midbody, high body, fundus, or cardia (100 patients received GA; 574 received MAC). The outcomes of the propensity score (PS)-matched (1:1) patients receiving either GA or MAC were analyzed.

resultsThe PS matching identified 94 patients who received GA and 94 patients who received MAC. Both groups showed high rates of en bloc resection (GA, 95.7%; MAC, 97.9%; p=0.68) and complete resection (GA, 81.9%; MAC, 84.0%; p=0.14). There were no significant differences between the rates of adverse events (GA, 16.0%; MAC, 8.5%; p=0.18) in the anesthetic groups. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the method of anesthesia did not affect the rates of complete resection or adverse events.

conclusionESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach at our high-volume center had good outcomes, regardless of the method of anesthesia. Our results demonstrate no differences between the efficacies and safety of ESD performed under MAC and GA.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaEarly gastric cancerEndoscopic submucosal dissection

Identifiers

PMID34224661
PMCPMC8831404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.