ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2026
Prophylactic Clip Closure to Prevent Bleeding After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Cost-Effectiveness Study.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.