ArticleDEN open2025
Analysis of lens cloudiness during endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures: Effects of a novel lens cleaner.
Article in DEN open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of anti-fouling endoscope tip hood for gastrointestinal endoscopy.Scientific reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to identify independent factors for intraoperative endoscopic lens cloudiness during gastric and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections, investigate the effectiveness of Cleastay, an endoscope anti-fog solution, and examine factors associated with severe submucosal fat deposition. Methods: A total of 220 patients who underwent gastric or colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections in two institutions between January 2022 and October 2023 were included. Significant factors related to cloudiness were determined using univariate and multivariate analyses. Patient background and tumor characteristics related to severe submucosal fat deposition were investigated, and the degree of intraoperative endoscopic lens cloudiness and outcomes were compared between the Cleash and Cleastay groups. Results: In the multivariate analysis, factors increasing lens cloudiness included long procedure time (odds ratio [OR], 17.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-202.08), stomach (vs. colon; OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 1.99-12.96), and severe submucosal fat deposition (OR, 12.19; 95% CI, 5.02-29.60). Conversely, the use of Cleastay (vs. Cleash; OR, 0.066; 95% CI, 0.021-0.21) was identified as a factor reducing cloudiness. Location analysis revealed that severe submucosal fat deposition was more common in the upper stomach and right colon. Conclusions: It was suggested that Cleastay is more useful for endoscopic submucosal dissection of the upper stomach and right colon, where severe submucosal fat deposition is expected.
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.