Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2025
Unidirectional versus direction-selectable traction device in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment and validation of a predictive scoring system for titanium clip retention at six months after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric lesions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A pilot study on the application and efficacy of mucosal traction-assisted clip closure in endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric submucosal tumors.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of traction direction in traction-assisted gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are underexplored. The clip-with-line (CWL) and spring-and-loop with clip (SLC) are unidirectional and direction-selectable traction devices, respectively. This study compared the procedure-related outcomes of CWL-assisted ESD (CWL-ESD) and SLC-assisted ESD (SLC-ESD) for superficial gastric neoplasms (SGNs).
methodsThis single-center randomized controlled trial included patients with SGNs who were randomly assigned to undergo CWL-ESD or SLC-ESD performed by an expert. The traction direction was classified as proximal, diagonally proximal, vertical, diagonally distal, or distal. Vertical traction (VT) was selected for SLC-ESD using the direction-selectable traction function. The primary endpoint was the median ESD time. The secondary endpoints included dissection speed. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors affecting ESD time.
resultsOverall, 105 patients who underwent SLC-ESD (n = 52) or CWL-ESD (n = 53) between August 2020 and April 2023 were included in the analysis. The median ESD time was significantly shorter in the SLC-ESD group than in the CWL-ESD group (26.0 vs. 40.5 min; P = 0.015). The median dissection speed was significantly faster in the SLC-ESD group than in the CWL-ESD group (24.9 vs. 18.2 mm
conclusionsA direction-selectable traction device may be more effective than a unidirectional traction device in gastric ESD.
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.