ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2025
Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection vs Submucosal Tunneling Endoscopic Resection for Gastric Submucosal Tumors.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 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.
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model for piecemeal resection during endoscopic resection of gastric GISTs.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Retrospective study on clinical outcomes and safety evaluation of da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopy and endoscopic cooperative for small gastric stromal tumors resection: preliminary single-center experience.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of the learning curve for submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe new working submucosal tunnel space allows entry to deeper layers of the luminal wall or even entirely outside the gastrointestinal tract for the treatment of submucosal tumors. Based on this concept, we developed submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER). Here, we compared the clinical outcomes between exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and STER (nonexposed EFTR) and analyzed the efficacy and safety of Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) based on STER for extra-gastrointestinal stromal tumors (EGISTs).
methodsSixty consecutive patients with tumors in the lesser curvature of the stomach corpus were enrolled from July 2019 to December 2023. Data on clinicopathologic features, treatment results, and follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed retrospectively.
resultsAmong the 60 patients, 31 patients underwent EFTR and 29 patients underwent STER. The EFTR group had a shorter procedure time ( P = 0.016) but a longer postoperative hospital stay ( P = 0.004) than the STER group. Tumor size > 2 cm and endoloop-clips suture were significantly associated with long-time procedure. NOTES based on STER was successful for EGISTs. Follow-up data from 6 to 60 months was collected with no loss. All patients were free from local recurrence and distant metastasis during the study period.
conclusionsAlthough the procedure time of STER is longer than that of EFTR, the postoperative hospital stay is shorter. Tumor size > 2 cm and use of endoloop-clips suture are significantly associated with long-time procedure. In addition, STER-based NOTES is a promising and safe methodology for the resection of EGISTs.
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.