ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application value of small intestinal endoscopic ultrasonography for protruding lesions of the small intestine.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Article
- Natural Course and Long-Term Outcomes of Gastric Subepithelial Lesions: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Analysing the application of small intestinal endoscopic ultrasound in small intestinal diseases.Gastroenterology report · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic resection (ER) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for subepithelial gastrointestinal lesions (SELs). We aimed to determine whether size, layer of origin, and histology based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and EUS-guided sampling (EUS-GS) influenced the outcomes and selection of patients for ER.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS, EUS-GS and resection of SELs from 2012-2019. Two pathologists reviewed the histology and layer of origin of all resected specimens, serving as the criterion for EUS accuracy.
resultsSeventy-three patients were included, of whom 59 (81%) were gastric SELs. Per EUS, median lesion size was 21 mm (interquartile range 15-32), and 63 (86%) originated from the 4th layer. The overall accuracy of EUS and EUS-GS in predicting the layer of origin and histology was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77-94%) and 96% (95%CI 87-98%), respectively. Based on EUS, 18 (25%) patients were referred for ER, 5 (7%) to laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery, and 50 (68%) to surgery. Size >20 mm was associated with the type of resection approach (P=0.005), while layer of origin and histology were not (P=0.06 and P=0.09, respectively). When SELs were inaccurately classified (n=4) there were no adverse events or revision of the resection approach.
conclusionsEUS plays an important role in the outcome of resection approach for SELs, with size significantly influencing the selection for ER. In patients undergoing ER, no revised resections were needed when EUS was inaccurate.
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.