ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
The effects of different traction devices on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc resection of large colorectal lesions, but it remains challenging due to thin walls and poor operability. Traction devices like SureClip traction band (SCTB, Micro-tech) and SO clip (SO-C, Zeon Medical Inc.) are used to address this. This study compared the differences in ESD outcomes between SCTB and SO-C. Objective: Comparative analysis of the efficacy of SO-C and SCTB for various therapeutic results, including procedure time in colorectal ESD. Design: A single-center retrospective study reviewed 982 colorectal ESD procedures for lesions 20-49 mm performed at Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine from January 2015 to November 2024. Methods: Patients were categorized into no-traction, SCTB, and SO-C groups. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize baseline differences. The primary outcome was ESD procedure time, and secondary outcomes assessed various therapeutic results. Results: After matching, there were no differences in procedure time (56.0 ± 31.2 vs 59.8 ± 30.6 min, Conclusion: There were no significant differences in ESD therapeutic results between SCTB and SO-C, while the SCTB had a faster deployment time.
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.