ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Safety and efficacy of scissor-type knives in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: International multicenter observational study.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Scissor-type knives have shown safety and efficacy in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures, particularly in studies from Japan. However, the safety and efficacy of these devices in international settings, particularly outside Japan, is not well established. Patients and methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted across nine international centers, encompassing a total of 461 lesions from 460 patients. In subgroup analysis, 162 lesions came from four institutions in Japan (Japanese institutions group, JAG) and 299 lesions from five institutions outside Japan (non-Japanese institutions group [NJAG]). After 1:1 propensity score matching resulted in 120 matched pairs of lesions, key outcomes were compared between groups. Results: The overall perforation rate during ESD procedures was 0.87%. Intraoperative perforations were observed more frequently in NJAG than JAG (3 vs. 1 event, 1.9% vs. 0.33%, respectively), although not statistically significant ( Conclusions: Use of scissor-type knives in colorectal ESD outside Japan demonstrated a favorable safety profile. However, certain performance outcomes, such as resection speed and resection success rates, were inferior to Japanese institutions.
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.