Endoscopic resection is the criterion standard of treatment for patients with early squamous cell neoplasia of the esophagus.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Hydrogels for preventing post-endoscopic submucosal dissection stenosis in early esophageal cancer: a comprehensive literature review.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025
   Review
2. Independent risk factors for esophageal refractory stricture after extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2021
   Article
3. Clinical feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection with minimum lateral margin of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Endoscopy international open · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Outcomes from a prospective trial of endoscopic radiofrequency ablation of early squamous cell neoplasia of the esophagus.2011

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as