ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Comparison of effectiveness and safety between endoscopic and surgical resection for 2-5 cm gastric stromal tumors.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging and clinicopathological features of a high-risk gastric stromal tumor: a case report.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Feasibility and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection of large gastric subepithelial lesions outside the operating room: 10 years of experience in a large tertiary hospital in China.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Comparable long‑term survival outcomes of endoscopic treatment versus surgical treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumors with a diameter of 5-10 cm.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs endoscopic resection remains controversial, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety between endoscopic and surgical resection for 2-5 cm gastric stromal tumors (GSTs).
methodsPatients with 2-5 cm GST resected at West China Hospital from March 2008 to April 2019 were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1) was performed to achieve baseline data consistency.
results112 patients were matched between the endoscopic resection group (ER) and the open surgery group. There were no significant differences in the complete resection rate (94.6% vs. 100%), the incidence of complications (25.0% vs. 14.3%), the recurrence rate (0% vs. 1.8%) and the 5-year relapse-free survival (100% vs. 97.9%) (P > 0.05). The ER had a shorter fasting time (3.5 days vs. 5 days), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (7 days vs. 8 days) and a lower hospitalization cost (3,589.16 USD vs. 5,931.24 USD) (P < 0.05). 54 cases were matched between the ER and the laparoscopic surgery group (LS). There were no significant differences in the complete resection rate (92.6% vs. 96.3%), the incidence of complications (22.2% vs. 11.1%), the fasting time (4 days vs. 3 days), the recurrence rate (0% vs. 3.7%) and the 5-year relapse-free survival (100% vs. 96.3%) (P > 0.05). The hospitalization cost (3,589.25 USD vs. 4,715.16 USD) was lower in the ER, and the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the LS (6 days vs. 7 days) (P < 0.05).
conclusionsAlthough slightly higher incidences of incomplete resection and perforation were shown in the endoscopic resection group, there was insignificant difference between groups (P > 0.05). Endoscopic resection might be an alternative surgical method for 2-5 cm GSTs.
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.