ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2015
Impact of formal training in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastrointestinal cancer: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- NANETS Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of stage I-III rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Endocrine-related cancer · 2026Guideline
- Choosing a Career in Advanced Endoscopy or General Gastroenterology.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2017Article
- Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2016Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo summarize the clinical impact of a formal training for the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastrointestinal cancer.
methodsWe searched databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library and Science citation Index updated to August 2014 to include eligible articles. In the Meta-analysis, the main outcome measurements were en bloc resection rate, local recurrence rate (R0) and the incidence of procedure-related complications (perforation, bleeding).
resultsEn bloc resection was high for both, dissecting stomach tumors with an overall percentage of 93.2% (95%CI: 90.5-95.8) and dissecting colorectal tumors with an overall percentage of 89.4% (95%CI: 85.1-93.7). Although the number of studies reporting R0 resection (the dissected specimen was revealed free of tumor in both vertical and lateral margins) was small, the overall estimates for R0 resection were 81.4% (95%CI: 72-90.8) for stomach and 85.9% (95%CI: 77.5-95.5) for colorectal tumors, respectively. The analysis showed that the percentage of immediate perforation and bleeding were very low; 4.96 (95%CI: 3.6-6.3) and 1.4% (95%CI: 0.8-1.9) for colorectal tumors and 3.1% (95%CI: 2.0-4.1) and 4.8% (95%CI: 2.8-6.7) for stomach tumors, respectively.
conclusionIn order to obtain the same rate of success of the analyzed studies it is a necessity to create training centers in the western countries during the "several years" of gastroenterology residence first only to teach EGC diagnose and second only to train endoscopic submucosal dissection.
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.