Endoscopic versus laparoscopic resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors at the esophagogastric junction using propensity score matching analysis
Scientific Reports
Cite this paper
Plain citation
Shanshan Zhu, Zhen Liu, Jingwen Zhang, Nan Dai, Saif Ullah, Ge Zhang, Shengang Zhang, Ping Liu, Yang Fu, Shimeng Zheng, Zhaokai Zhou, Yudi Xu, Le Chang, Changqing Guo, Xinguang Cao. Endoscopic versus laparoscopic resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors at the esophagogastric junction using propensity score matching analysis. Scientific Reports. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-98859-3
Research context and source limits
Limited evidence note. Only the source material identified below has been reviewed; this is not a complete Paper GEO V2 assessment.
Study design and unresolved matching integrity; treatment comparisons are not verified.
Research question and design
This single-centre retrospective study compared endoscopic and laparoscopic resection for pathologically confirmed gastrointestinal stromal tumours at the esophagogastric junction. The stated study window was December 2013 to November 2023, and eligibility focused on tumours measuring 2–5 cm. This is an observational treatment comparison, not a randomized trial.
Source: Methods: Study design and patients; Figure 1
How treatment groups were compared
The authors describe nearest-neighbour propensity matching at a 1:1 ratio, using age, sex, tumour size, mitotic count and risk classification. This establishes the reported analytical approach; it does not verify that matching achieved balance or removed unmeasured confounding. No comparative safety, recovery or oncological benefit is endorsed here.
Source: Methods: Statistical analysis; Tables 1–3
Unresolved source conflict
The abstract reverses the unmatched ER/LR allocation relative to the Results and Table 1. More substantially, the matched laparoscopic group is labelled n=20 but lists 10 males and 20 females. The formal PDF confirms the table inconsistency, so matched-group balance remains unverified.
Evidence limits
- Reported methods are summarized without adopting disputed participant allocations.
- A corrected allocation and matching table are required before a complete V2 comparison.
Provenance
- Article source — Official publisher or PMC full text reviewed locally. Methods: Study design and patients; Figure 1
Source review: 2026-10-27.
Verify publication identity
These records identify the same original work; database inclusion is not evidence of scientific validity or clinical benefit.