ArticleEndoscopy international open2017
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: predictors and neoplasm-related gradients of difficulty.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Planned use of a novel Elastic Traction Device improves efficiency in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a propensity-score matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Comparison of traction vs. snare as rescue methods for challenging colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Propensity score-matched study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Implementation of endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe: survey after 10 ESD Expert Training Workshops, 2009 to 2018.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2023Article
- Is colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection safe and effective for 15-19-mm tumors?International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Inner Traction-Facilitated Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Using Rubber Band and Clips for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of S-O Clip-Assisted Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Factors influencing interruption of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Diode Laser-Can It Replace the Electrical Current Used in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection?Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Outpatient ESD for challenging colorectal lesions: Is it feasible and safe for western countries?Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- DNA mismatch repair is not disrupted in stage 0 colorectal cancer resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection.Oncology letters · 2020Article
- Endoscopic full-thickness resection of early colorectal neoplasms using an endoscopic submucosal dissection knife: a retrospective multicenter study.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
- Efficacy and suitable indication of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a balloon-assisted endoscope.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020Article
- Endoscope rotating technique is useful for difficult colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Predictive Factors of Mild and Severe Fibrosis in Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- UEG Week 2019 Poster Presentations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019Article
- How to predict and achieve success with a very long procedure in an endoscopy unit: Is it time for a break?Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Outcomes of endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions subjected to prior failed resection or substantial manipulation.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Construction of a preoperative scoring system to predict the difficulty level of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.PloS one · 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
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimThe role of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is standardized in Japan and East Asia, but technical difficulties hinder its diffusion. The aim was to identify predictors of difficulty for each neoplasm type.
methodsA competent operator performed all procedures. ESD difficulty was defined as: en bloc with a slow speed (< 0.07 cm
resultsA total of 140 ESDs were included: 110 in the colon and 30 in the rectum. Neoplasms were laterally spreading tumors - granular type (LST-G) in 85 cases (61 %); the median longer axis was 30 mm (range 15 - 180 mm); a scar was present in 15 cases (11 %). ESD en bloc resection and difficulty rates were 85 % (n = 94) and 35 % (n = 39) in the colon, and 73 % (n = 22) and 50 % (n = 15) in the rectum (
conclusionsColonic and rectal ESD difficulty has qualitative differences. Preoperative predictors should be considered to identify the difficulty gradient of each neoplasm type and the appropriate setting for ESD.
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.