ArticleDEN open2026
Gel Immersion Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Using a Scissor-type Knife for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Outcomes of Underwater Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Duodenal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Traction Device-Assisted Complete Closure to Prevent Colorectal Post-ESD Coagulation Syndrome.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Efficacy of gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Enhanced submucosal visualization using amber-red color imaging during gel-immersion colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Gel Immersion Tumor Characterization for Colorectal Lesions: A Pilot Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the short-term therapeutic outcomes between conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) and gel immersion ESD (GI-ESD) for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with SNADETs who underwent C-ESD or GI-ESD between June 2016 and May 2024. To reduce proficiency bias, the first 50 cases per endoscopist were excluded. C-ESD was performed using a scissor-type knife under CO Results: Overall, 51 C-ESD and 49 GI-ESD procedures were analyzed. Both groups achieved 100% en bloc resection. R0 resection rates were comparable (C-ESD: 92.6%, GI-ESD: 90.2%, Conclusions: GI-ESD is a safe and effective alternative to conventional ESD for SNADETs, offering comparable resection outcomes and low risk of adverse events with a reduced risk of muscle layer exposure.
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.