Trial reportScientific reports2026
Efficacy and safety of a novel ClearHemograsper for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: A prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a widely performed procedure for the management of gastric neoplasms. Effective hemostasis during ESD is critical for procedural success and patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a newly developed hemostatic device, ClearHemograsper, in gastric ESD. Patients who underwent ESD for gastric neoplasms between December 2022 and November 2023 were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the ClearHemograsper group or the Coagrasper group. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of clinicopathologic features and endoscopic treatment outcomes. A total of 157 patients, comprising 80 patients in the ClearHemograsper group and 77 patients in the Coagrasper group, were included in the final analysis. Analyses found no statistically significant differences in the bleeding control time (3.2 ± 2.9 vs. 3.5 ± 2.7 min, 95% Confidence interval, -1.227 to 0.526; p = 0.430) and total procedure time (15.2 ± 11.8 vs. 15.5 ± 10.4 min, p = 0.846) between the groups. En bloc resection was successfully performed for all lesions in both groups. Adverse events, including early bleeding (10.0% vs. 3.9%) within 48 h post-procedure and delayed bleeding (0.0% vs. 1.3%), showed no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.211). All adverse events were effectively managed through endoscopic hemostasis. Novel ClearHemograsper demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety to Coagrasper, with preliminary evidence suggesting non-inferior or potentially superior hemostatic performance. These results demonstrate the comparable performance of domestic products in the Korean market, where overseas products occupy the majority of the device market share.
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.