SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2016
Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus local excision for early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection: Challenges, innovations, and the road ahead.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Review
- Long-term oncological outcomes after local excision of T1 rectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Survival effects of primary and metastatic surgical treatment in metastatic small intestinal tumors: A propensity score-matching study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Cost comparisons of endoscopic and surgical resection of stage T1 rectal cancer.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- The feasibility of a novel injectable hydrogel for protecting artificial gastrointestinal ulcers after endoscopic resection: an animal pilot study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Review
- Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Article
- Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: patient selection and special considerations.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and local excision (LE) are minimally invasive procedures that can be used to treat early rectal cancer. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for these lesions. A systematic review was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ESD and LE. A meta-analysis was conducted following all aspects of the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. To perform the statistical analysis, the odds ratio (OR) was used for categorical variables and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. Four studies, involving a total of 307 patients, were identified. The length of hospital stay was longer in the group of patients undergoing LE [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.94; 95% CI -2.85 to -1.02; p < 0.0001]. The combined results of the individual studies showed no significant differences as regards en-bloc resection rate (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.25-2.70; p = 0.74), R0 resection rate (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.62-3.73; p = 0.35), overall complication rate (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.26-1.69; p = 0.40), and tumor size (WMD 0.57; 95% CI -3.64 to 4.78; p = 0.79) between ESD and LE. When adopting the fixed effect model which takes into account the study size, ESD was associated with a lower recurrence rate than LE (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03-0.87; p = 0.03), while with the random-effect model the difference was not significant (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.02-2.04; p = 0.17). Over the last decade improvements in technology have improved the technical feasibility of rectal ESD. In specialized centers with highly experienced endoscopists, ESD can provide high-quality en-bloc excision of rectal neoplasms equivalent to traditional local excision.
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.