ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Endoscopic Treatment for Crohn's Disease-Related Deep Small Intestinal Strictures: Balloon-Assisted Enteroscopy-Guided Stricturotomy Versus Balloon Dilation Therapy-A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch data on balloon-assisted enteroscopy-guided stricturotomy (BAE-ES) versus endoscopic balloon dilation (BAE-EBD) for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD)-related deep small intestinal strictures is limited. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of BAE-ES versus BAE-EBD in treating CD-related deep small intestinal strictures.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with CD-related deep small intestinal strictures who underwent either BAE-ES or BAE-EBD treatment between May 2021 and June 2025. Outcome measures included technical success, adverse events, and follow-up outcomes.
resultsA total of 100 CD patients underwent treatment (BAE-ES: n = 59; BAE-EBD: n = 41). BAE-ES: 73 BAE-ES procedures were performed on 59 patients. The technical success rate was 98.63% (72/73). Immediate bleeding occurred at 15 stricture sites (20.55%) in 15 patients (25.42%). BAE-EBD: 44 BAE-EBD procedures were performed on 41 patients. The technical success rate was 88.64% (39/44). Immediate bleeding occurred at 21 stricture sites (47.73%) in 21 patients (51.22%). FOLLOW-UP: BAE-ES: No cases of bleeding or perforation occurred during follow-up. 1 patient (1.69%) underwent partial small intestinal resection. Stricture recurrence requiring endoscopic re-intervention occurred at 2 sites (2.74%) in 1 patient. BAE-EBD: Bleeding occurred in 2 patients during follow-up; no perforations occurred. Four patients (9.76%) underwent partial small intestinal resection. Stricture recurrence requiring endoscopic re-intervention occurred at 6 sites (13.64%) in 6 patients; the treatment strategy was changed to BAE-ES, which achieved technical success.
conclusionBAE-ES demonstrates a higher technical success rate and favorable efficacy and safety profile for treating CD-related deep small intestinal strictures, warranting broader clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41238999What 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.