ArticleDEN open2026
Preclinical Evaluation of the Safety of the Dedicated Gel for Gel Immersion Endoscopy With Gastrointestinal Perforation and Peritoneal Leakage.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Gel immersion endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection has been developed as an alternative to saline immersion therapeutic endoscopy. However, in cases of gastrointestinal perforation, gel may leak from the lumen into the peritoneal cavity, and the safety of such events remains unclarified. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of the dedicated gel (Viscoclear, VC) in the event of perforation and peritoneal leakage. Methods: A perforation model was created to compare the colonic burst pressure after VC or saline injection. Acute toxicity was assessed by intraperitoneal VC administration in rats at a maximum dose of 20 mL/kg. Results: The burst pressure was significantly higher for VC injection than for saline. There were no abnormalities indicative of toxicity observed in the general condition or at necropsy after VC administration, and the hematological and biochemical parameters were within normal limits. VC did not promote bacterial growth compared with saline. VC was not cytotoxic and did not cause skin sensitization. Intradermal reactivity tests showed that VC caused negligible irritation that was judged "acceptable". Conclusions: These results suggest that VC is less likely to leak than saline and that, even in the event of a minor leakage into the peritoneal cavity, VC has no acute systemic toxicity and acceptable biocompatibility.
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.