ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2026
Endoscopic
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 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
backgroundSurgical resection is the core treatment for localized gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (LGISTs). Advances in minimally invasive techniques have led to the use of both endoscopic and laparoscopic resections; however, there is controversy regarding their oncological efficacy and safety, especially due to the lack of head-to-head comparative data with balanced baselines.
aimTo systematically compare the perioperative outcomes and mid-term oncological efficacy of endoscopic
methodsPatients with LGIST who underwent surgery in our hospital between January 2023 and January 2024 were retrospectively enrolled. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 45 patients who received endoscopic resection were assigned to the endoscopic group, and 45 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection were included in the laparoscopic group. Intraoperative indicators (such as operation time, blood loss, R0 resection rate), postoperative recovery indicators (including hospital stay, time to first flatus), complication rate, and mid-term oncological outcomes [1-year/3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS)] were compared between the two groups. Multivariate Cox regression was used to identify prognostic factors.
resultsAfter matching, the baseline data of the two groups were comparable (
conclusionIn carefully selected LGIST cases, endoscopic resection achieves comparable mid-term oncological efficacy to that of laparoscopic resection, while offering the advantages of shorter operation time, less blood loss, and faster postoperative recovery. It can therefore be a minimally invasive treatment option for eligible patients, with surgical decision-making based on tumor characteristics and multidisciplinary assessments.
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.