Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Hemostatic Efficacy and Safety of the Hybrid Injector ClearCoajet in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05737017 (A Randomized Active-controlled Clinical Trial to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of a Hybrid Hemostatic Device), which is not on this 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.
A Randomized Active-controlled Clinical Trial to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of a Hybrid Hemostatic Device (ClearCoajet) During Endoscopic Resection for Colorectal Tumors
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWe aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ClearCoajet, a device that combines the hemostatic function of a heat probe with an injector, for hemostasis of intraprocedural bleeding (IPB) during colon endoscopic mucosal resection.
methodsThis multicenter, randomized clinical trial, conducted from October 2022 to April 2025, enrolled patients undergoing EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal polyps measuring ≥ 15 mm. This study evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of hemostasis for IPB by comparing a snare-tip-only strategy (control group) with a strategy in which hemostasis could be performed using either the snare tip or ClearCoajet at the endoscopist's discretion (Coajet group).
resultsA total of 220 lesions were included in the study, with 106 and 114 lesions assigned to the Coajet and control groups, respectively. IPB occurred in 24.1% of EMR procedures, the majority of which were classified as mild cases. Hemostasis was attempted using the assigned interventions for each group. The hemostasis success rate was slightly higher in the Coajet group (96.4% [27/28]) than in the control group (84.0% [21/25]), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.176). The risk difference in hemostasis success was 12.4 percentage points (95% CI, - 4.7 to 31.3). Among the 27 successful cases in the Coajet group, 17 were controlled using ClearCoajet and 10 using the snare tip. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of hemostasis time, post-polypectomy syndrome, or delayed bleeding.
conclusionsIn this trial, a ClearCoajet-available strategy was non-inferior to a snare-tip-only strategy, with ClearCoajet effectively controlling most bleeding episodes in that group without additional hemostatic devices. Given the smaller-than-planned sample, this finding should be confirmed in an adequately powered trial.
trial registrationwww. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT05737017.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42611155What 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.