ArticleDEN open2027
Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes Between Gel Immersion and Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors (With Video).
Article in DEN open, 2027. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Gel immersion endoscopic mucosal resection (GIEMR) has recently emerged as a novel technique for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, its clinical advantages over underwater EMR (UEMR) remain unclear. This study compared the short- and long-term outcomes of GIEMR and UEMR for SNADETs. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with SNADETs who underwent UEMR or GIEMR. The R0 resection rate, procedural duration, adverse events, and local recurrence were compared between the groups. Risk factors for non-R0 resection were evaluated using logistic regression analyses. Results: Thirty-two and 49 patients in the UEMR and GIEMR groups, respectively, were included. The R0 resection rate was higher in the GIEMR group than in the UEMR group (GIEMR vs. UEMR; 47.4 vs. 25.7%, Conclusions: GIEMR achieved a higher R0 resection rate and shorter procedural duration than UEMR without increasing adverse events; longer follow-up is warranted. Trial Registration: N/A (Only approval of the research protocol by an Institutional Reviewer Board of Fukushima Medical University).
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.