Trial reportWorld journal of surgical oncology2014
Endoscopic mucosal resection with circumferential incision for treatment of rectal carcinoid tumours.
Trial report in World journal of surgical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic mucosal resection using anchored snare Tip-in versus precut technique for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Trial
- Efficacy, Safety and Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Approaches (EMR, ESD and TAMIS) for Early Rectal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Submucosal saline injection and mini-probe endoscopic ultrasound to assess endoscopic resectability of colorectal subepithelial tumors.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Endoscopic Methods for Rectal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms with Low Malignant Potential: A Network Meta-analysis.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Review
- Review
- Endoscopic mucosal resection with double band ligation versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Diagnosis, treatment, and current concepts in the endoscopic management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Clinical utility of endoscopic submucosal dissection using the pocket-creation method with a HookKnife and preoperative evaluation by endoscopic ultrasonography for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Comparison of conventional and modified endoscopic mucosal resection methods for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors (NETs).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Clinical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumor.BMC gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Proper Treatment Option for Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Using Precut Endoscopic Mucosal Resection.Clinical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Efficacy of Precut Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Treatment of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors.Clinical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Evolving role of the endoscopist in management of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with Circumferential Mucosal Incision for Colorectal Neoplasms: Comparison with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and between Two Endoscopists with Different Experiences.Clinical endoscopy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is simple and quick and has low complication rates. However, the disadvantage of local recurrence or remnant rate limits the use of this technique. We aimed to analyse the outcomes of conventional EMR and EMR with circumferential incision (CIEMR), a simplified modification of EMR, in the endoscopic treatment of rectal carcinoid tumours.
methodsA total of 59 consecutive patients with rectal carcinoid tumours without regional lymph node enlargement confirmed by endoscopic ultrasonography were included in the study. These patients underwent endoscopic treatment from January 2009 to September 2011 and were randomly designated into CIEMR (n = 31) or EMR group (n = 28). En bloc resection rate, pathological complete resection rate, procedure time, complications and follow-up outcomes were analysed.
resultsThe en bloc resection rate was not significantly different between the CIEMR and EMR groups (100% versus 96.55%, P > 0.05). The pathological complete resection rate was higher in the CIEMR group than in the EMR group (96.7% versus 82.14%, P < 0.05). The overall complication rate, delayed bleeding and procedure time were not significantly different between the two groups. No recurrence was observed in either the EMR or CIEMR group.
conclusionsCIEMR optimises the procedure of EMR and simplifies the technique of endoscopic submucosal dissection; thus, it has a better histologically complete resection rate and more acceptable complication rate than EMR. Thus, CIEMR may be preferable to conventional EMR for resection of rectal carcinoid tumours less than 15 mm.
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.