ArticleThe Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology2026
Comparison Between the Efficacy of EFR and CASL in the Treatment of Small Gastric Stromal Tumors: A Retrospective Study.
Article in The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR) in comparison to cap-aspiration lumpectomy (CASL) for treating small gastrointestinal (GI) stromal tumors (GISTs). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was carried out on the data from elderly patients (66 cases) with small gastric GISTs who were treated with EFR (41 cases) or CASL (25 cases). The study compared the clinical features, surgical conditions, intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative efficacy, economic benefits, and follow-up of small gastric GISTs in the EFR and CASL groups.
resultsThe mean operative time for the EFR group was longer than that for the CASL group [45.0 (32.5, 66.5) minutes versus 30.0 (20.0, 42.5) minutes]; the resection time in the EFR group was higher than that in the CASL group [30.0 (20.0, 50.5) versus 9.0 (6.5, 16.5) minutes]; the rate of utilization of hot hemostatic forceps in the EFR cohort was higher than that observed in the CASL cohort [75.6% (31/41) versus 12.0% (3/25)]; the postoperative course of antibiotics was longer in the EFR group than in the CASL group [(2.8 Å} 2.0) d versus (1.0 Å} 2.0) d]; and the hospitalization cost of the EFR group was extremely higher than that of the CASL group [(¥13 595.0 Å} 2653.3) versus (¥11 209.0 Å} 2458.9)].
conclusionEFR and CASL are safe and effective in the treatment of small gastric GISTs, and CASL is more suitable for the treatment of small gastric GISTs located in the gastric fundus and body in elderly patients. Cite this article as: Ye L, Huang B, Yi X, Cai H. Comparison between efficacy of EFR and CASL in the treatment of small gastric stromal tumors: A retrospective study. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2026;37(1):35-43.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41578771PMC12824896What 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.