Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42059448›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2026

Prophylactic Clip Closure to Prevent Bleeding After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

Daryl Ramai, Abdulrahman Qatomah, Patrick Magahis, Kobina Essilfie-Quaye, John Fang, Hiroyuki Aihara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational 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.

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

6 authors.

Daryl RamaiDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Abdulrahman QatomahDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Patrick MagahisDepartment of Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kobina Essilfie-QuayeDepartment of Internal Medicine, HCA Florida North Florida Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, USA .
John FangDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Hiroyuki AiharaDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en-bloc resection of large and complex colorectal neoplasms but is associated with a clinically significant risk of delayed bleeding. Prophylactic clip closure of post-ESD mucosal defects reduces bleeding risk; however, its routine use remains unclear. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after colorectal ESD.

methodsWe developed a decision-analytic Markov model comparing colorectal ESD with prophylactic clip closure vs ESD without closure. The model incorporated probabilities of delayed bleeding, subsequent management pathways, costs, and health utilities. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, evaluated against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic (1-way, 2-way, and threshold) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (10,000 Monte Carlo simulations) were performed.

resultsIn the base-case analysis, prophylactic clipping was more effective and more costly than no clipping, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $88,843/QALY. The incremental cost was $1,102 with a QALY gain of 0.01. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated robust findings; clipping remained cost-effective provided total costs were below $8,943, and no clipping was favored only if delayed bleeding risk without clips fell below 3.12%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed prophylactic clipping was the preferred strategy in 83.8% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. DISCUSSION: Prophylactic clip closure after colorectal ESD seems to be a cost-effective strategy, with the potential to reduce delayed bleeding at an acceptable incremental cost. However, these findings are based on model assumptions and should be interpreted in the context of these parameters.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionGastrointestinal HemorrhagePostoperative HemorrhageWound Closure TechniquesCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansMarkov ChainsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSurgical Instrumentsbleedingcost effectivnessendoscopic submucosal dissectionprophylactic clipping

Identifiers

PMID42059448
PMCPMC13400040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.