Usefulness of the clip-flap method of endoscopic submucosal dissection: A randomized controlled trial

Table 3 Univariate analysis of parameters for delayed procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection

	Parameters	Conventional group			Clip-flap group
		Odds ratio	95%CI	P value	Odds ratio	95%CI	P value
Age (yr)	> 70	0.67	0.22-2.10	0.49	0.79	0.22-2.86	0.72
Sex	Male	2.70	0.63-11.55	0.18	-	-	-
H. pylori infection	Positive	1.31	0.39-4.44	0.66	0.69	0.20-2.43	0.57
Kyoto classification of gastric mucosa
Atrophy (vs A0 + A1)	A2	1.52	0.25-9.19.57	0.65	-	-	-
Intestinal metaplasia (vs IM0 + IM1)	IM2	2.03	0.61-6.72	0.25	1.00	0.29-3.42	1.00
Tumor
Depth (vs m)	sm	-	-	-	3.85	0.31-46.49	0.29
Location (vs Lower)	Upper/middle	10.12	2.42-42.41	0.02	4.75	1.41-16.05	< 0.01
Major axis of tumor (mm) (vs < 10)	10 <, < 20	3.00	0.78-11.54	0.11	3.15	0.61-16.29	0.17
	20 <	7.00	1.36-36.01	0.02	22.67	3.14-163.63	< 0.01
Ulceration	UL+	1.42	0.18-10.99	0.74	1.80	0.104-30.89	0.69
ESD
Area of specimen (mm2) (vs < 500)	500 <	3.29	0.28-39.14	0.35	-	-	-
Operator
Procedure experience	< 50 times	0.32	0.08-1.29	0.11	0.26	0.05-1.30	0.10

A0: No atrophic pattern; A1: Atrophic patterns with a margin between the non-atrophic fundic mucosa and atrophic mucosa located in the lesser curvature of the stomach; A2: Atrophic patterns; whose margin does not cross the lesser curvature; BMI: Body mass index; DR0: No diffuse erythema; DR1: Mild diffuse erythema; DR2: Severe diffuse erythema; IM0: No intestinal metaplasia; IM1: Intestinal metaplasia within antrum; IM2: Intestinal metaplasia up to corpus; lower: Lower third of the stomach; m: mucosal layer; middle: Middle third of the stomach; por: Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig: Signet ring cell carcinoma; sm: Submucosal layer; tub1: Well differentiated adenocarcinoma; tub2: Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma; upper: Upper third of the stomach; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; H. pylori: Helicobacter pylori.