ArticleMedicine2017
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal epithelial neoplasms: A single center experience in north China.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic resection of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Clinicopathologic characteristics and risk factors for treatment outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Resections Larger than 10 cm: Outcomes from a Portuguese Center.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Assessment of physical stress during the perioperative period of endoscopic submucosal dissection.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Perforation causing abdominal compartment syndrome after colonoscopic polypectomy: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult procedure with a higher risk of complications, especially for large colorectal epithelial neoplasms. This study aimed to report our experience and clinical outcomes, and to estimate the factors associated with incomplete resection and complications.One hundred forty one colorectal epithelial neoplasms in 130 consecutive patients treated by ESD at the endoscopy center of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital from January 2013 to January 2016 were included. Factors associated with the incomplete resection and perforation were evaluated.The mean colorectal epithelial neoplasm size was 26.5 ± 9.5 (15.0-60.0) mm, the mean procedure time of colorectal ESD was 76.1 ± 48.7 (36.5-195.0) minutes. The en bloc resection rate, the en bloc R0 resection rate, and the curative resection rate, were 93.6% (132/141), 91.5% (129/141), and 88.7% (125/141), respectively. Perforation during colorectal ESD occurred in 7 patients (4.9%), postoperative bleeding occurred in 4 patients (2.8%). There was no recurrence occurred in all patients during follow periods of 13.2 ± 8.6 (6.0-36.0) month. Submucosal fibrosis was the only independent factor related to both incomplete resection (odds ratio [OR] 12.425; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.501-61.734; P = .002) and perforation (OR 10.646; 95%CI 1.188-95.421; P = .035) of colorectal ESD.Colorectal ESD is a safe and effective technique for en bloc resection of large colorectal epithelial neoplasms. Submucosal fibrosis was independently related to incomplete resection and perforation.
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.