ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2016
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for elderly patients with superficial squamous esophageal neoplasms.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Resection for Small Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Elderly Patients.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022Article
- [Treatment of Superficial Esophageal Cancer: An Update].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2021Review
- Safety and usefulness of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal cancers in elderly patients aged 80 years or older.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021Article
- Impact of the Charlson Comorbidity Index on the treatment strategy and survival in elderly patients after non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study.Journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection in elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Surgical 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in elderly patients with superficial squamous esophageal neoplasms.
objectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial squamous esophageal neoplasms in elderly patients (≥65 years) compared with non-elderly patients.
methodsAll patients with superficial squamous esophageal neoplasms receiving endoscopic submucosal dissection were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 130 were aged 65 or older (group A), and 201 were aged younger than 65 years (group B). Therapeutic efficacy, adverse events, and follow-up data were evaluated.
resultsGroup A had a higher prevalence of concomitant diseases than group B (52.3% vs. 14.9%, respectively). R0 resection rate was 82.3% in group A and 84.6 % in group B (P = 0.717). The curative resection rate was 80.8% in group A and 83.6% in group B (P = 0.653). The rate of procedure-related non-cardiopulmonary adverse events was 20.8% in group A and 16.9% in group B (P = 0.377). The incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events during or after the procedure was 6.2% in group A and 2.5% in group B (P = 0.094). No procedure-related mortality was reported in either group.
conclusionEndoscopic submucosal dissection is effective and safe for treating superficial squamous esophageal neoplasms in elderly patients.
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.