ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Time Prediction Accuracy and Influencing Factors in Colorectal ESD by Trainees: A Mixed-Model Analysis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate prediction of procedure time is important for endoscopy unit efficiency and may support procedural planning in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), especially when performed by trainees. However, factors influencing prediction accuracy are not well understood.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 275 colorectal ESD cases performed by three trainees between May 2022 and January 2025. Trainees completed a preoperative "Strategy Note" that included predicted procedure time based on lesion assessment. The primary outcome was prediction error, defined as the difference between predicted and actual procedure time. A linear mixed model (LMM) was used to identify factors associated with prediction error. Case number, defined as the sequence of cases from each trainee's first use of the Strategy Note, was included as a fixed effect along with lesion size, morphology, location, fold-crossing, and flexure involvement, with a random effect for each trainee.
resultsThe median predicted time was similar among trainees (30 min), while actual procedure time differed significantly (p = 0.008). LMM analysis identified tumor size > 3 cm (estimate: + 15.43 min, p = 0.01), protruded morphology (+ 10.47 min, p = 0.03), and flexure involvement (+ 5.93 min, p = 0.04) as significant predictors of increased prediction error. Subgroup analysis revealed varying trends among trainees, even for lesions ≤ 3 cm.
conclusionPrediction accuracy in colorectal ESD varies among trainees and is significantly affected by lesion complexity. Tumor size, morphology, and flexure involvement should be considered in structured training programs to enhance procedural planning and operator preparedness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41057570What 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.