Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26519288›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2016

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus local excision for early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

S Wang, S Gao, W Yang, S Guo, Y Li

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S WangThe Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China.
S GaoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Shanxi Cancer Hospital and Institute, 3 Zhigongxin Street, Taiyuan, 030013, Shanxi, China.
W YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shanxi Cancer Hospital and Institute, Taiyuan, China.
S GuoDepartment of Molecular Biology, Shanxi Cancer Hospital and Institute, Taiyuan, China.
Y LiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Shanxi Cancer Hospital and Institute, 3 Zhigongxin Street, Taiyuan, 030013, Shanxi, China. liyaoping1600@sina.com.
Shanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital · CNShanxi Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedColectomyDissectionEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFemaleHumansIntestinal MucosaLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOdds RatioRectal NeoplasmsRectumTreatment OutcomeEarly colorectal cancerEndoscopic submucosal dissectionLocal excisionMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26519288
OpenAlexW1861125757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.