ArticleDEN open2025
Effect of spray COAG mode on hemostasis in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using inverse probability of treatment weight analysis.
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.
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
Objective: Swift and forced COAG with an electrosurgical knife are commonly used for intraoperative hemostasis in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). If bleeding cannot be stopped using an electrosurgical knife, cauterization is attempted using hemostatic forceps. Since April 2022, our hospital has started using Spray COAG for intraoperative hemostasis for colorectal ESD. This study aimed to provide evidence of the efficacy of Spray COAG for intraoperative hemostasis. Methods: Colorectal ESD was performed for 320 lesions at our hospital. Of these, 307 were included; 145 and 162 lesions were operated before and after the introduction of Spray COAG, respectively. Spray COAG was used after the change. The primary endpoint was the change in the frequency of use of hemostatic forceps after the introduction of Spray COAG; the secondary endpoint was the change in the prevalence of postoperative complications after the introduction of Spray COAG. It should be noted that the Spray COAG mode was employed solely for hemostasis and not for dissection, while the Swift COAG mode was utilized for dissection in the After Spray COAG group. Statistical analysis was conducted using IPTW analysis. Results: The frequency of use of hemostatic forceps was significantly decreased after the introduction of Spray COAG (odds ratio = 0.12, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.06-0.23, Conclusion: Spray COAG reduced the frequency of hemostatic forceps use in colorectal ESD.
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.