ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Risk factors for esophageal stricture after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection: a preliminary, multicenter, retrospective, case-control study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post-circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (cESD) esophageal stricture remains a refractory complication despite combined steroid therapy (CST). The submucosal steroid pre-injection strategy (SSPS) has emerged as a novel prophylactic approach. This study aimed to preliminarily identify risk factors for post-cESD stricture, with a focus on steroid-based prophylaxis. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, case-control study utilized the same patient dataset as our previously published cohort study and included 55 patients who underwent cESD with either SSPS or CST prophylaxis across eight tertiary hospitals in China (January 2022-August 2024). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors by calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with subgroup analyses stratified by prophylactic measures. Results: The stricture and non-stricture groups comprised 28 and 27 patients, respectively. Baseline demographics, lesion features, longitudinal length, and transverse width of resected specimens were comparable between stricture and non-stricture groups (all Conclusion: A Longitudinal length of circumferential involvement exceeding 50 mm independently predicts post-cESD stricture, whereas SSPS provides superior protection compared to CST. These findings are preliminary and require validation in large-scale prospective studies. SSPS may potentially mitigate stricture risk in high-risk lesions, but its role in expanding cESD indications for extensive superficial esophageal cancer needs further exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.