Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41896484›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Defect Closure Techniques After Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Large Colon Polyps.

Himesh B Zaver, Jason Erno, Olivia Reszczynski, Owen Battel, Aditya Singh, Gianna Stoleru, Tanya Wanchek, Wendy Novicoff, Ross C D Buerlein, Andrew P Copland

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Himesh B ZaverDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA. psh8nw@uvahealth.org.
Jason ErnoDepartment of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Olivia ReszczynskiDepartment of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Owen BattelDepartment of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Aditya SinghSchool of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Gianna StoleruDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Tanya WanchekDepartment of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Wendy NovicoffDepartments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Ross C D BuerleinDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Andrew P CoplandDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsResection of large colon polyps carries a risk of delayed bleeding. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single- and dual-modality defect closure techniques following conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colon polyps.

methodsA decision-tree cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare payer perspective modeling a 20 mm right-sided polyp removed via conventional (hot) EMR. Model inputs were derived from pooled data from 4817 patients. Closure techniques evaluated included through-the-scope clips (TTSC), through-the-scope suturing (TTSS), hemostatic agent (HA), and multimodal combinations.

resultsTTSC was the most cost-effective strategy (total cost $3842; 17.17 quality-adjusted life-years). HA and multimodal strategies (TTSS + TTSC, TTSC + HA) offered marginally higher effectiveness but at greater cost (HA, $3,932; TTSS + TTSC, $4339.25; TTSC + HA, $4,447.76), resulting in less favorable cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses suggested TTSC remained cost-effective up to a total clip cost of $544.86 and with technical success rates ≥ 67%.

conclusionTTSC provides favorable clinical and economic outcomes, with institutional costs and procedural expertise influencing optimal closure strategy selection.

Indexed as

Colonic PolypsEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionSuture TechniquesCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisDecision TreesHumansTreatment OutcomeAdjusted life yearCostDecisionEffectiveness analysisEffectiveness ratioEndoscopic mucosal resectionIncremental costQualityTree model

Identifiers

PMID41896484
PMCPMC13500422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.