Trial reportArquivos de gastroenterologia2026
SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BLUE EYE HYPERTONIC SOLUTION VERSUS SALINE SOLUTION IN THE TREATMENT OF FLAT COLONIC LESIONS: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL.
Trial report in Arquivos de gastroenterologia, 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
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) represents a significant global health challenge, with early detection and minimally invasive treatments playing key roles in reducing morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is widely employed for flat colonic lesions, and the quality of submucosal elevation is a decisive factor for achieving complete resections, minimizing complications, and ensuring accurate histopathological assessment. Conventional 0.9% saline with dye is the standard solution but dissipates rapidly, while viscoelastic agents such as Blue Eye may offer more durable and technically advantageous lifts.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the technical and histopathological outcomes of Blue Eye versus 0.9% saline with indigo carmine in EMR of flat colonic lesions, focusing on lateral margins, injection volume, procedural performance, and clinical safety.
methodsA prospective, single-center, triple-blind study was conducted between January and October 2024, including 14 patients undergoing 19 EMRs for Paris 0-IIa flat colonic lesions sized 20-30 mm. Patients were randomized to receive either Blue Eye or saline with indigo carmine. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, lesion features, procedural variables, and histopathological outcomes were collected. Statistical analysis included the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical data, adopting P<0.05 as significant.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between groups regarding age, sex, and comorbidities. Blue Eye demonstrated significantly larger lateral margins (2.61±1.19 mm vs 1.81±0.37 mm, P=0.047) and required lower injection volume (4.60±1.50 mL vs 10.00±7.21 mL, P=0.020). Other variables, including procedure time, en bloc resection rate, bleeding, and number of clips, did not differ significantly. Anatomical lesion distribution and unfavorable anatomical findings also showed no statistical association with the solution employed.
conclusionBlue Eye appears to provide superior technical performance in EMR of flat colonic lesions by ensuring wider lateral margins with less injection volume, without increasing adverse outcomes. Larger multicenter studies are needed to confirm and generalize these findings.
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.