ArticleScientific reports2024
A multicentre, prospective cohort study comparing two endoscopic procedures for the treatment of gastric muscularis propria lesions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To date, no prospective study has been conducted to compare the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic snare resection with an elastic band (ESR-EB) and endoscopic snare resection with a transparent cap (ESR-C) for treating gastric muscularis propria lesions. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of ESR-EB with those of ESR-C for gastric muscularis propria lesions less than 10 mm in diameter. A total of 64 patients were enrolled prospectively from May 2023 to November 2023 at Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University, and the People's Hospital of Zhongshan City. The study compared clinical characteristics, tumour features, and surgical outcomes between the two groups. Of 64 patients, 29 underwent ESR-C, and 35 underwent ESR-EB. There were no differences in age, gender, location, tumour size, growth pattern, resection time, histology diagnosis, or follow-up time (P > 0.05). Complete resection was achieved in all the patients. The operation time was significantly greater in the ESR-C group than in the ESR-EB group (41.31 ± 9.87 min vs. 26.26 ± 10.32 min, P = 0.000). In the ESR-C cohort, 21 patients (72.41%) had perforation, and 1 patient (3.45%) had bleeding. In the ESR-EB group, 7 patients (20.00%) had perforation. The complication rate varied significantly between the two groups (P = 0.000). No recurrence or metastasis was observed in either group during the follow-up period. Both ESR-C and ESR-EB achieved a 100% complete resection rate for gastric muscularis propria lesions less than 10 mm in diameter.ESR-EB had the potential to reduce the operation time and lower the occurrence of complications. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier ChiCTR2300072856.
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.