ArticleGut and liver2026
Clinical Outcomes of Traction-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Prepyloric and Pyloric Neoplasms: Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Gut and liver, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (TA-ESD) using dental floss substantially reduces procedural times without increasing adverse event rates. However, few studies have described the clinical outcomes following TA-ESD for prepyloric and pyloric neoplasms. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients treated with TA-ESD for prepyloric and pyloric neoplasms. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 208 patients who underwent ESD for prepyloric and pyloric neoplasms between 2016 and 2021 at Pusan National University Hospital. The patients were categorized into the conventional ESD (C-ESD) (n=173) and TA-ESD (n=35) groups. One-to-two propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between both groups. Results: In the unmatched cohort, compared with the C-ESD group, the TA-ESD group had a significantly greater rate of resection defects exceeding half of the circumference of the pylorus (45.7% vs 27.2%, p=0.048), a lower complete resection rate (85.7% vs 97.1%, p=0.014), a higher positive vertical margin rate (5.7% vs 0.0%, p=0.028), and a longer procedural time (34.2±26.1 minutes vs 25.3±22.0 minutes, p=0.036). After PSM, the TA-ESD group required a significantly shorter procedural time than did the C-ESD group (30.1±18.1 minutes vs 40.4±23.7 minutes, p=0.031). No statistically significant differences were observed in other variables between the two groups. Conclusions: Compared to C-ESD, TA-ESD significantly shortened the procedural time for treating prepyloric and pyloric neoplasms. However, no significant differences were observed in the complete resection rate or in adverse events between the two groups.
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.