Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27286839›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2016

[Endoscopic full-thickness resection].

B Meier, A Schmidt, K Caca

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

B MeierMedizinische Klinik I, Gastroenterologie und Onkologie, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Posilipostr. 4, 71640, Ludwigsburg, Deutschland.
A SchmidtMedizinische Klinik I, Gastroenterologie und Onkologie, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Posilipostr. 4, 71640, Ludwigsburg, Deutschland.
K CacaMedizinische Klinik I, Gastroenterologie und Onkologie, Klinikum Ludwigsburg, Posilipostr. 4, 71640, Ludwigsburg, Deutschland. karel.caca@kliniken-lb.de.
Klinikum Ludwigsburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are powerful tools for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms. However, those techniques are limited to the superficial layers of the GI wall (mucosa and submucosa). Lesions without lifting sign (usually arising from deeper layers) or lesions in difficult anatomic positions (appendix, diverticulum) are difficult - if not impossible - to resect using conventional techniques, due to the increased risk of complications. For larger lesions (>2 cm), ESD appears to be superior to the conventional techniques because of the en bloc resection, but the procedure is technically challenging, time consuming, and associated with complications even in experienced hands. Since the development of the over-the-scope clips (OTSC), complications like bleeding or perforation can be endoscopically better managed. In recent years, different endoscopic full-thickness resection techniques came to the focus of interventional endoscopy. Since September 2014, the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) has the CE marking in Europe for full-thickness resection in the lower GI tract. Technically the device is based on the OTSC system and combines OTSC application and snare polypectomy in one step. This study shows all full-thickness resection techniques currently available, but clearly focuses on the experience with the FTRD in the lower GI tract.

Indexed as

Endoscopes, GastrointestinalEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionEndoscopy, GastrointestinalEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalComplicationsEndoscopic methodsGastrointestinal neoplasmsMinimally invasive surgical proceduresReview

Identifiers

PMID27286839
OpenAlexW2442112754

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.