ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2023
The relationship between the esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection technical difficulty and its intraoperative process.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2023. 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.
- Mapping Two Decades of Research on Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Esophageal Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- An innovative submucosal filler for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A porcine model study (with video).PloS one · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Evaluation of Pathological Complete Response Using Deep Neural Network in Esophageal Cancer Patients Who Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy-Multicenter Retrospective Study from Four Japanese Esophageal Centers.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEstimating the esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technical difficulty is important to reduce complications. Endoscopic duration is one of the related factors to a technical difficulty. The relationship between the esophageal ESD technical difficulty and its intraoperative process was analyzed as a first step toward automatic technical difficulty recognition using artificial intelligence.
methodsThis study enrolled 75 patients with superficial esophageal cancer who underwent esophageal ESD. The technical difficulty score was established, which consisted of three factors, including total procedure duration, en bloc resection, and complications. Additionally, technical difficulty-related factors, which were perioperative factors that included the intraoperative process, were investigated.
resultsEight (11%) patients were allocated to high difficulty, whereas 67 patients (89%) were allocated to low difficulty. The intraoperative process, which was shown as the extension of each endoscopic phase, was significantly related to a technical difficulty. The area under the curve (AUC) values were higher at all the phase duration than at the clinical characteristics. Submucosal dissection phase (AUC 0.902; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.752-1.000), marking phase (AUC 0.827; 95% CI 0.703-0.951), and early phase which was defined as the duration from the start of marking to the end of submucosal injection (AUC 0.847; 95% CI 0.701-0.992) were significantly related to technical difficulty.
conclusionsThe intraoperative process, particularly early phase, was strongly associated with esophageal ESD technical difficulty. This study demonstrated the potential for automatic evaluation of esophageal ESD technical difficulty when combined with an AI-based automatic phase evaluation system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36508068What 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.