Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40179965›Full record

Trial reportEndoscopy2025

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic intraperitoneal subserosal dissection for gastric submucosal tumors with extraluminal growth pattern.

Li-Yun Ma, Ke-Yi Guo, Xin-Yang Liu, Meng-Jiang He, Wei-Feng Chen, Sheng-Li Lin, Yao-Yao Gong, Ping-Hong Zhou, Jian-Wei Hu

Abstract readVideo-Audio MediaClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Li-Yun Ma *Endoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ke-Yi Guo *Endoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xin-Yang LiuEndoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Meng-Jiang HeEndoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Wei-Feng ChenEndoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Sheng-Li LinEndoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yao-Yao GongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jiangsu Province Hospital and Nanjing Medical University First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing, China.
Ping-Hong ZhouEndoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jian-Wei HuEndoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center of Endoscopy, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

Biomedical Support Project of Shanghai 21S31904000China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2023M730664
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic intraperitoneal subserosal dissection (EISD) has been reported to be a promising modified tunneling technique for gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) with a predominantly extraluminal growth pattern. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of EISD for gastric extraluminal SMTs. Methods: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients who underwent EISD for gastric extraluminal SMTs between October 2018 and March 2024. Clinicopathological characteristics and procedure-related parameters were analyzed. Results: 10 patients with 11 gastric extraluminal SMTs were included. The mean (SD) longest and shortest specimen diameters were 2.1 (0.9) cm (range 0.5–4.0) and 1.8 (0.7) cm (range 0.4–3.0), respectively. All SMTs (100%) were resected en bloc, and 10 (90.9%) were retrieved en bloc. The mean (SD) resection and suture times were 58.9 (31.5) minutes (range 26–125) and 12.4 (10.1) minutes (range 3–25), respectively. Two patients experienced type I mucosal injury at the tumor site, and no major adverse events occurred. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3.4 (SD 0.8) days (range 3–5). No recurrence or metastasis occurred during a mean follow-up period of 32.1 (SD 18.8) months (range 7–71). Conclusions: EISD appeared to be a feasible and safe method for removing gastric extraluminal SMTs in selected patients.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionGastric MucosaGastroscopyStomach NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40179965
PMCPMC12599145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.