ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
A prediction score model of difficult endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions.
Article in Annals of medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo establish a prediction model to triage difficult esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in order to reduce complications.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 742 patients who underwent ESD for early esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions. Difficult ESDs were defined as those meeting any of the following criteria: (1) long procedure time (≥ 90 min), (2) occurrence of intraoperative adverse events (muscularis propria injury, perforation, and massive hemorrhage), or (3) piecemeal resection. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of technical difficulty. Then we developed a score prediction model according to the Framingham system for the first time and presented a convenient table containing the risk probability for each patient. In addition, the score model was validated in the validation cohort.
resultsThe risk factors for difficult ESDs were as follows: lesion total length 4-6 cm (1 point), 7-9 cm (2 points) or ≥10 cm (3 points); lesion ≥ 2/3 circumference (2 points); preoperative invasion depth extending to submucosa (2 points). Areas under ROC curves for the score model in the derivation and validation sets were 0.768 (95% CI, 0.726-0.811) and 0.719 (95% CI, 0.646-0.793), respectively. In addition, the percentage of difficult ESDs in easy (score = 0), intermediate (score = 1-2), difficult (score = 3-4), and very difficult (score ≥5) categories were 14.8%, 36.1%, 62.6%, and 87.5% in the derivation cohort and 14.8%, 33.7%, 56.3%, and 68.8% in the internal validation cohort.
conclusionsWe successfully established a prediction model to assess the difficulty of esophageal ESD and it can provide a scientific basis for clinical management to reduce complications.
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.