ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Endoscopic full-thickness resection
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2025. 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.
- Adverse events associated with full-thickness resection devices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: National postmarketing surveillance study.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Enhancing adenoma detection rates: The case for upgrading to advanced colonoscopy technology.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Advantages of new generation colonoscopes on adenoma detection: A propensity-score matching study.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is increasingly used for treating gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in the stomach.
aimTo compare the efficacy, tolerability, and clinical outcomes of EFTR
methodsWe collected clinical data from patients diagnosed with GISTs who underwent either EFTR or SR at our hospital from October 2011 to July 2024. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio based on baseline characteristics and tumor clinical-pathological features using propensity score matching. We analyzed perioperative outcomes and follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS).
resultsOut of 912 patients, 573 met the inclusion criteria. After matching, each group included 95 patients. The EFTR group demonstrated statistically significant advantages over the SR group in average operative time (
conclusionThis study is a non-inferiority design. The EFTR group significantly outperformed the SR group in terms of operative time, length of hospital stay, time to resume a liquid diet, incidence of adverse events, and hospitalization costs, demonstrating its higher economic efficiency and better tolerability. Additionally, although the
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.