ArticleMedicine2022
Complete omission of second-look endoscopy after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in real-world practice.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility, Stability, and Clinical Outcomes of Mucosal Defect Closure Using a Novel Hooking-Jaw Clip after Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Impact of gastric neoplasms location on clinical outcome of patients treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly performed in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. Second-look endoscopy (SLE) has been performed empirically in several clinical settings. We investigated whether SLE omission was associated with an increased risk of postESD bleeding in all patients, including those administered antithrombotic agents. Between July 2016 and June 2018, 229 patients were treated with a clinical pathway for gastric ESD that involved SLE on the day after ESD (SLE group). Between September 2018 and May 2020, 215 patients were treated using a clinical pathway that did not include SLE (nonSLE group). We retrospectively compared the incidence of postESD bleeding among the propensity score-matched cohorts and determined the risk factors for postESD bleeding using multivariate analysis. The propensity score-matched cohorts showed no significant differences in the incidence of postESD bleeding between the SLE (3.2%) and nonSLE (5.1%) groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of lesions in the lower gastric body (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-4.35, P.03) was a significant risk factor for postESD bleeding during admission, whereas resected specimen size ≥ 40 mm (adjusted OR 3.21, 95% CI 1.19-8.19, P.02) and antiplatelet therapy (adjusted OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.47-11.80, P.007) were significant risk factors after discharge. Complete omission of SLE after gastric ESD does not increase postESD bleeding in clinical practice.
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.