ArticleScientific reports2026
A pilot study on the application and efficacy of mucosal traction-assisted clip closure in endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric submucosal tumors.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) presents a technical challenge for defect closure. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a novel mucosal traction-assisted clip closure (MTCC) technique compared to conventional clip closure (CCC). In this multi-center retrospective study of 218 patients undergoing EFTR for gastric SMTs at seven hospitals (June 2020-June 2025), patients were divided into MTCC (n = 32) and CCC (n = 186) groups. To minimize selection bias, 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) yielded a matched cohort of 96 patients (MTCC, n = 32; CCC, n = 64). Primary outcomes were defect closure success rate and closure time. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, fasting time, and hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were performed by defect diameter (≤ 2.5 cm vs. >2.5 cm) and tumor location (gastric fundus). Defect closure was successfully achieved in all patients in the MTCC group. After PSM, baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. The MTCC group continued to demonstrate superior closure efficiency compared to the CCC group, with a significantly shorter median defect closure time (7.0 min vs. 17.0 min, P < 0.001) and fewer titanium clips used (8.0 vs. 12.0, P < 0.001). The median total procedure time was also significantly reduced in the MTCC group (47.0 min vs. 53.0 min, P = 0.027). Postoperatively, patients in the MTCC group had a shorter median fasting time (2.0 days vs. 3.0 days, P = 0.001), while complication rates remained comparable between groups. The advantages of MTCC were consistently observed across subgroups stratified by defect size and tumor location. After adjusting for potential confounders using PSM, the MTCC technique appears to be a feasible method for managing post-EFTR defects. In this cohort, it was associated with significantly enhanced closure efficiency and accelerated postoperative recovery.
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.