ArticleSingapore medical journal2019
Endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal neoplasms: an audit of its safety and efficacy in a single tertiary centre in Singapore.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Operative, safety and economic outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in older adults: a retrospective real-world analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Pathological features and risk factors for submucosal infiltration of colorectal lateral spreading tumors.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical guidance on endoscopic management of colonic polyps in Singapore.Singapore medical journal · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: a narrative review of current data and clinical applications.Singapore medical journal · 2022Review
- Colon Sparing Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Advanced Colorectal Lesions: Is It Time for Global Adoption?Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Efficacy of early clip-with-line method for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Optimising endoscopic management of early gastrointestinal neoplasia.Singapore medical journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) provides a higher en bloc and R0 resection rate than endoscopic mucosal resection. Colorectal ESD is not widely used because of its technical difficulty and risk of complications, especially for right-sided colonic lesions. We audited the clinical outcomes of our initial experience with colorectal ESD.
methodsWe reviewed data collected from a prospective registry of patients who underwent colorectal ESD from December 2014 to March 2018. Therapeutic outcomes and procedure-related complications were analysed.
resultsA total of 41 patients (mean age 67.4 years, 21 male) underwent colorectal ESD. The distribution of the lesions was as follows: rectum (n = 9), sigmoid colon (n = 8), descending colon (n = 6), splenic flexure (n = 1), transverse colon (n = 5), ascending colon (n = 8) and caecum (n = 4). The mean size was 23 (range 12-50) mm. En bloc resection was achieved in 35 (85.4%) out of 41 patients, and R0 resection or clear resection margins was achieved in 33 (94.3%) of the en bloc resection patients. The lesion was upstaged in 14 (34.1%) patients after ESD. Colonic perforation occurred in 3 (7.3%) patients during ESD and was successfully treated with endoscopic clips. There was no procedure-related bleeding. No patient required surgery for management of complications. The median duration of hospitalisation was 1 (range 0-7) day. Four patients with lesions that were upstaged after ESD, from high-grade dysplasia to intramucosal carcinoma with deep submucosal invasion, were referred for colectomy.
conclusionOur early outcome data was comparable to that from large published series. ESD is an effective and feasible treatment for colorectal lesions.
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.