ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2022
Comparison of endoscopic full-thickness resection and cap-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in the treatment of small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GI stromal tumors.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of ligation-assisted versus snare traction-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection for small (≤ 1.5 cm) gastric submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria: a propensity score-matched analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Comparison Between the Efficacy of EFR and CASL in the Treatment of Small Gastric Stromal Tumors: A Retrospective Study.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Endoscopic full-thickness resection for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of ESR-EB and ESE in the treatment of small gastric muscularis propria tumours: single-centre prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison between cap-aspiration lumpectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of small gastric submucosal tumors: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Endoscopic full-thickness resectionWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- A multicentre, prospective cohort study comparing two endoscopic procedures for the treatment of gastric muscularis propria lesions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Present situation of minimally invasive surgical treatment for early gastric cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Review
- Postoperative encapsulated hemoperitoneum in a patient with gastric stromal tumor treated by exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection: A case report.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of endoscopic full-thickness resection and ligation-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection for small (≤ 1.5 cm) gastric subepithelial tumors originating from muscularis propria.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Advances in endoscopic resection techniques of small gastric tumors originating from the muscularis propria.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byResponse.2022
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWith the increasing incidence of small GI stromal tumors (GISTs), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and cap-assisted EFTR (EFTR-C) have been suggested as 2 effective resection methods. We aimed to compare the outcomes of EFTR and EFTR-C for the treatment of small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GISTs.
methodsThis retrospective study included 67 patients who underwent EFTR and 46 patients who underwent EFTR-C at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. Clinicopathologic features, adverse events (AEs), and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Univariate and multivariate linear and logistic regressions were used to analyze the effects of the procedure on the therapeutic outcomes of patients and adjusted for covariates in the multivariate analysis.
resultsThe tumor size in the EFTR group tended to be larger (P = .005). The resection time in the EFTR-C group was shorter than that in the EFTR group (38.3 ± 20.7 minutes vs 15.0 ± 11.8 minutes, P < .001), which retained statistical significance with adjustment for the covariates (adjusted mean difference, 22.2; 95% confidence interval, 15.0-29.4; P < .001). The R0 resection rate of the EFTR group was 94.0% and of the EFTR-C group 97.8% (P = .355). The EFTR-C group was superior to the EFTR group in terms of perioperative therapeutic outcomes, AEs, and postoperative recovery. No recurrence occurred in the EFTR and EFTR-C groups.
conclusionsEFTR-C was found to be the preferable technique for small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GISTs with shorter operation times, lower AEs, faster postoperative recovery, and shorter hospitalization times as compared with EFTR.
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.