ArticleDEN open2027
Clinical Outcomes of Rubber-clip-assisted Versus Conventional Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Study.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Adequate traction is essential for safe and efficient colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but gravitational traction is often insufficient in certain situations. Several traction techniques are reportedly effective. We use the rubber-clip method (RCM), which is a simple and inexpensive technique that combines a standard clip with a rubber band to allow directional traction adjustment. This study was performed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of RCM-assisted colorectal ESD. Methods: Among 551 colorectal ESD procedures performed between January 2014 and October 2025, 452 patients were eligible for inclusion. Propensity score matching using seven covariates yielded 56 RCM and 56 non-RCM cases. The primary endpoint was procedure time, and the secondary endpoints were perforation, bleeding, en bloc resection, and pathological complete resection. Additionally, all procedures were classified as long-duration (≥120 min) or short-duration (<120 min) to identify independent risk factors for prolonged procedures, including intraoperative variables. Results: After matching, the RCM group showed a significantly shorter procedure time than the non-RCM group (66.8 vs. 90.7 min, respectively; Conclusions: The RCM shortened procedure time and reduced perforation risk. Given its low cost, simplicity, and ability to adjust traction direction, the RCM may represent an effective traction method for colorectal ESD.
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.