ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2023
Comparison of the effects of endoscopic submucosal dissection and laparoscopic distal radical surgery on the rehabilitation and quality of life of patients with early gastric cancer.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Predicting postoperative recurrence of auricular pseudocyst: key factors and risk models.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Article
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
objectiveThis study was designed to compare the effects of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and laparoscopic distal radical surgery (LDRS) on patient rehabilitation and quality of life (QoL) in patients with early gastric cancer (GC).
methodsThe clinical data of 52 patients with early GC admitted to Wuhan Union Hospital from January 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 32 patients who underwent LDRS were assigned to the laparoscopic group, and the rest of the 20 patients who underwent ESD were assigned to the endoscopic group. The two groups were compared in clinical efficacy, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative hospitalization time, gastrointestinal ventilation time and postoperative complications, and the postoperative recurrence and postoperative QoL of the two groups were evaluated and recorded. Independent risk factors for recurrence of gastric cancer were analyzed by logistics regression.
resultsThe laparoscopic group showed a significantly lower complete resection rate than the endoscopic group (P=0.030). The endoscopic group experienced notably less intraoperative blood loss and operation time, significantly earlier time for the first anal exhaust and shorter hospitalization time in contrast to the laparoscopic group (all P<0.05). Six months after operation, the endoscopic group had notably higher MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores than the laparoscopic group (P<0.001). In addition, the laparoscopic group had a notably higher total incidence rate of complications than the endoscopic group (P<0.05). Among the 52 patients, 8 patients had recurrence. According to Logistics regression analysis, tumor diameter and invasion depth were independent risk factors for recurrence (both P<0.05).
conclusionWith significantly better efficacy than that of LDRS, ESD is beneficial to postoperative rehabilitation and can improve the QoL of patients, and both schemes cause no significant effect on the recurrence of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37056828PMC10086909W4365479043What 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.