ArticleMedicine2018
Endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer with mixed-type histology: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastric Cancer with Mixed-Type Histology: A Systematic Review.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a primary treatment for the early gastric cancer (EGC) who have a negligible risk of lymph node metastasis satisfying specific criteria. These criteria are histologically categorized by EGC with differentiated-type histology (EGC-DH) and undifferentiated-type histology (EGC-UH). However, gastric cancer is histologically heterogenous and there has been no specific criteria for EGC with mixed-type histology (EGC-MH). Moreover, therapeutic outcomes of ESD for EGC-MH have not been clearly described.
methodsWe will search the core databases (MEDLINE (through PubMed), the Cochrane Library, and Embase) from their inception to November 2018 using pre-established searching strategy by 2 independent evaluators. The P.I.C.O. is as follows; Patients: who have EGC-MH, Intervention: ESD, Comparison: none, Outcome: at least one among the rate of complete resection, curative resection, en bloc resection, recurrence or procedure-related adverse event that enabled an evaluation of feasibility of ESD. All types of study design will be sought and publications in English with full-text will be included. The risk of bias will be assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Descriptive data synthesis is planned and quantitative synthesis will be used if the included studies are sufficiently homogenous (pooled therapeutic outcomes data with 95% confidence intervals). Publication bias will be assessed with quantitative analyses if more than 10 articles are enrolled.
resultsThe results will provide evidence for validity of current ESD criteria in addition to the technical feasibility of ESD for EGC-MH.
conclusionThis study will provide evidence of ESD for EGC-MH.
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.