ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Local lesion characteristics rather than H. pylori infection status predict endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding: a large, confounder-adjusted study and a revised perspective.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A preoperative risk-scoring model for predicting intraoperative hemorrhage during endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
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
backgroundWhether Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection increases the risk of intraoperative bleeding during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) remains controversial. Previous studies often used a binary H. pylori classification and often inadequately controlled for local lesion characteristics, location, size, and invasion depth. This study aimed to re-evaluate the predictive value of H. pylori infection status through refined stratification and systematic adjustment of local factors.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study consecutively enrolled 799 EGC patients. Based on histological, serological, urea breath test, and endoscopic findings, patients were categorized into three groups: H. pylori-negative (n = 179), prior infection (evidence of prior infection without current activity, n = 454), and active infection (positive histology or urea breath test, n = 166). The primary outcome was intraoperative bleeding requiring active intervention. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed, incorporating local lesion characteristics and key clinical factors. Interaction, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the findings.
resultsNo significant difference in intraoperative bleeding rates was observed among the three groups (28.5 vs. 26.7 vs. 24.7%, P = 0.728). Multivariate analysis identified larger lesion size and submucosal invasion as independent risk factors. A potential association with dual antiplatelet interruption was noted but based on only four events. Higher platelet count and lesion location in the lower third of the stomach were protective factors. H. pylori infection status was not independently associated with bleeding risk. Interaction, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses consistently supported this conclusion.
conclusionIn this large-sample study with rigorous adjustment for confounding factors, H. pylori infection status was not an independent risk factor for intraoperative ESD bleeding. Our findings suggest that risk assessment should prioritize local lesion characteristics and key clinical factors over H. pylori infection status. This hypothesis-generating observation awaits validation in prospective multicenter studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42426386What 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.