ArticleMedicine2017
Endoscopic resection for small esophageal submucosa tumor: Band ligation versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experience with Esophageal Granular Cell Tumors: Clinical and Endoscopic Analysis of 22 Cases.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Ligation-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for esophageal granular cell tumors is safe and effective.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2020Article
- Resection of early esophageal neoplasms: The pendulum swings from surgical to endoscopic management.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2019Review
- Clinical outcomes of ligation-assisted endoscopic resection for duodenal neuroendocrine tumors.Medicine · 2018Observational
- Performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for esophageal submucosal tumors: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because an esophageal submucosa tumor (SMT) may be malignant despite its small size, a safe endoscopic resection method is needed in some small SMTs. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be simple, but incomplete pathologic resection margin status is common. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of 2 kinds of EMR techniques (conventional EMR and EMR with band ligation device) and to evaluate the factors associated with incomplete pathologic resection.We evaluated the medical records of 36 patients. All lesions were esophageal SMTs located in the submucosa or muscularis mucosa less than 10 mm in size by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The clinical outcomes based on the endoscopic procedures and factors associated with incomplete pathologic resection were evaluated.The mean tumor size was 6.6 ± 4.1 mm. The overall en bloc and complete resection rates were 100% and 80.6%, respectively. No procedure-related complications, such as perforation and bleeding, were found. Univariate analysis showed that complete resection rates were higher in granular cell tumors than in leiomyomas (82.8% vs 17.2%, P = .029), tumors located in the submucosa layer than in the muscularis mucosa (96.6% vs 3.4%, P = .003), and in EMR with band ligation device than in conventional EMR (82.8% vs 17.2%, P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that conventional EMR was the only significant factor associated with incomplete resection (OR, 35.594; 95% CI, 2.042-520.329; P = .014)EMR with a band ligation device is an effective and safe treatment method for small esophageal SMT.
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.