ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Comparison of a portable disposable large-channel gastroscope and a conventional reusable gastroscope in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional reusable endoscopes have high disinfection costs because of their large size. In this study, we compared the effectiveness, safety, and operation performance of the portable disposable large-channel endoscope that we developed with those of a conventional gastroscope in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).
aimTo compare two gastroscopes in ESD for effectiveness and safety.
methodsTen Bama pigs were subjected to gastroscopy and ESD after general anesthesia. The experiment was completed by four experienced endoscopists. First, two endoscopists randomly selected the portable disposable large-channel or conventional gastroscope to complete gastroscopy procedures. The other two endoscopists assessed the quality of endoscopic images. After endoscopy, all of the endoscopists randomly used the portable disposable large-channel endoscope or the conventional gastroscope for ESD. Endoscopic operation performance, submucosal dissection time, total procedure time, total submucosal injection volume, specimen size, success rate of
resultsNo significant differences in gastroscopy duration or in the integrity, sharpness, saturation, and brightness of the gastroscopic images were observed between the gastroscopes. For ESD, no significant differences in endoscopic operation performance, incision time, submucosal dissection time, total procedure time, total submucosal injection volume, specimen size, or success rate of
conclusionThe portable disposable large-channel endoscope can be used safely and effectively for gastroscopy and treatment.
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.