ArticleDigestion2026
A Structured, Repetitive Simulation Program for Endoscopic Coagulation Hemostasis with Hemostatic Forceps: An Assessor-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Bleeding Ulcer Model.
Article in Digestion, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrompt endoscopic hemostasis is required to control upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Current training relies on on-the-job exposure, with limited evidence supporting the use of dry-lab simulators. This study aimed to develop a structured, repeatable simulation-based training (SBT) program for thermal coagulation hemostasis and evaluate its efficacy.
methodsThis single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted at Tohoku University Hospital from December 2023 to June 2025. Nonexpert endoscopists were randomized into either an intervention group (five SBT sessions, including basic and hemostasis tasks, over 2 months) or a control group. Co-primary outcomes were procedure time and blinded video-based rubric scores for hemostasis at both low- and high-difficulty sites. Changes in self-efficacy were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). The analysis followed intention-to-treat principles.
resultsTwenty participants were enrolled, with nine in the intervention group and 11 in the control group. At the final assessment, the intervention group demonstrated shorter procedure times at both the antrum (43.6 vs. 51.3 s, p = 0.02) and the upper gastric body (32.6 vs. 59.7 s, p < 0.01). Significant within-group reductions were observed only in the intervention group (effect sizes of 0.62 in the antrum and 0.80 in the upper body). Rubric-based scores improved at high-difficulty sites (p = 0.03). All five VAS domains improved significantly in the intervention group, whereas two domains increased in the control group.
conclusionStructured SBT with a high-fidelity bleeding simulator improved technical performance, efficiency, and self-efficacy in coagulation hemostasis, representing a scalable framework for competency-based education.
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.