Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30671663›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

Comparison of two multiband mucosectomy devices for endoscopic resection of Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia.

Durayd Alzoubaidi, David Graham, Paul Bassett, Cormac Magee, Martin Everson, Matthew Banks, Marco Novelli, Marnix Jansen, Laurence B Lovat, Rehan Haidry

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Endoscopic techniques for gastric neuroendocrine tumors: An update.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
    Review
  4. Endoscopic resection for early esophageal carcinoma.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019
    Review
  5. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Durayd AlzoubaidiDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London (UCL), Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK. d.alzoubaidi@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8308-1667
David GrahamDepartment of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Paul BassettStatsconsultancy Ltd, 40 Longwood Lane, Amersham, HP7 9EN, UK.
Cormac MageeDepartment of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Martin EversonDepartment of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Matthew BanksDepartment of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Marco NovelliDepartment of Pathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Marnix JansenDepartment of Pathology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Laurence B LovatDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London (UCL), Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
Rehan HaidryDivision of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London (UCL), Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TS, UK.
University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe London College · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEsophageal adenocarcinoma carries a poor prognosis and therefore treatment of early neoplasia arising in the precursor condition Barrett's esophagus (BE) is desirable. Visible lesions arising in BE need endoscopic mucosal resection for accurate staging and removal. Resection modalities include a cap-based system with snare and custom-made multiband mucosectomy (MBM) devices (Duette, Cook Medical Ltd). A new MBM device has recently become available (Captivator, Boston Scientific Ltd).

objectivesA retrospective pilot study to compare the efficacy, safety, specimen size and histology of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) specimens resected with two MBM devices (Cook Duette and Boston Captivator) in treatment naive patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for BE neoplasia.

methodsConsecutive EMR procedures carried out by a single experienced endoscopist were analysed. All visible lesions were marked and resected using one of the two MBM devices. All resected specimens were analysed by the same two experienced pathologists. The resected specimens in both groups were analysed for maximum diameter, minimum diameter, surface area and depth.

resultsTwenty consecutive patients were analysed (18M + 2F; mean age 74) in the Duette group and 20 (17M + 3F; mean age 72) in the Captivator group. A total of 58 specimens were resected in the Duette and 63 in the Captivator group. Min diameter, max diameter, surface area and depth of the ER specimens resected by the Captivator device were significantly larger than that by the Duette device [min diameter 9.89 mm vs 9.07 mm (p = 0.019); max diameter: 13.54 mm vs 12.38 mm (p = 0.024); surface area: 135.40 mm

conclusionsThese two MBM devices showed equivalent efficacy and safety outcomes, but the EMR Captivator device resected specimens with a larger area in the esophagus when compared with the Duette device. A possible advantage of this is in situations where en bloc resections with fewer EMRs are desirable for larger lesions.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedBarrett EsophagusEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionEquipment DesignEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesBarrett’s esophagus (BE)Endoscopic mucosal resectionEsophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)Multiband mucosectomy (MBM)

Identifiers

PMID30671663
PMCPMC6795619
OpenAlexW2913174714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.