ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Endoscopic full-thickness resection of upper gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a retrospective study from a large tertiary hospital in China.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model for piecemeal resection during endoscopic resection of gastric GISTs.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A pilot study on the application and efficacy of mucosal traction-assisted clip closure in endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric submucosal tumors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWith the rapid development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic resection (ER) of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has been an alternative therapeutic strategy. However, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for GISTs still presents certain technical difficulties and challenges. The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of EFTR for GISTs in the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract.
methods238 patients with UGI GISTs who underwent EFTR from October 2016 to September 2024 were retrospectively enrolled into this study. Clinicopathologic characteristics, procedure-related outcomes, postoperative adverse events, and follow-up results were collected and analyzed.
resultsThe endoscopic complete resection (ER0) and histological complete resection (R0) rates were 99.58% and 95.80%, respectively. The mean tumor size measured under endoscopic evaluation was 17.22 ± 8.36 mm (range 4-50 mm). The average procedure time was 52.96 ± 38.21 min, comprising a resection time of 33.46 ± 26.50 min and a wound closure time of 19.50 ± 18.59 min. Ten patients (4.20%) experienced major adverse events, including delayed bleeding in one case (0.42%), delayed perforation in one case (0.42%), peritonitis in four cases (1.68%), hydrothorax in three cases (1.26%), and aspiration pneumonia in four cases (1.68%). Besides, thirty-six procedures (15.13%) experienced technical difficulty. The multivariate analysis revealed that procedures performed by non-experts, tumors presenting predominantly extraluminal growth, and tumors with diameters of 20-30 mm and ≥ 30 mm were independent risk factors for technical difficulty. No patients encountered recurrence and metastasis during the mean follow-up times of 44.15 ± 24.83 months.
conclusionEFTR is a safe and effective technique for treating UGI GISTs. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the role of EFTR in treating GISTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41530352What 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.