ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
Comparative Study on the Clinical Effects of Different Surgical Methods in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic full-thickness resectionWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Retracted: Comparative Study on the Clinical Effects of Different Surgical Methods in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-07-19Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Informed/Patient Consent - None/Withdrawn · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/F5856B9529EE56C1E1C9D83F9F62AC
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective is to compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic resection (LAP), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Methods: The clinical data of 105 patients who were treated in our hospital and diagnosed with GIST by pathology after surgery from March 2019 to March 2021 were collected. Patients were divided into the LAP group, EFR group, and ESD group according to different surgical methods. The clinical data, surgical conditions, complications, and postoperative conditions of the patients were recorded retrospectively. Patients were followed up closely after surgery. Results: The operation time of the EFR group and ESD group was shorter than that of the LAP group, and the operation time of the EFR group was shorter than that of the ESD group ( Conclusion: LAP, EFR, and ESD have good curative effect, good safety, and good prognosis in the treatment of GIST. But compared with LAP, EFR and ESD have the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery, shorter hospitalization time, and lower hospitalization cost.
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.