Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31161293›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2020

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a meta-analysis.

Peiwen Li, Bin Ma, Shulei Gong, Xinyu Zhang, Wenya Li

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Updates in the Field of Submucosal Endoscopy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Peiwen LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 North Nanjing Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Bin MaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang, 110042, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Shulei GongDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 North Nanjing Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Xinyu ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 North Nanjing Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Wenya LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 North Nanjing Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China. saint5288@hotmail.com.
First Hospital of China Medical University · CNChina Medical University · CNLiaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe emerging endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is becoming an alternative method for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of ESTD for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions.

methodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted to search relevant studies through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before 1 December 2018. Studies relating to ESTD for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions were included. Rates of effectiveness (en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate), rates of feasibility (muscular damage rate, perforation rate, postprocedural bleeding rate, and emphysema rate), and rates of follow-up (recurrence rate and stricture rate) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were constructed based on the random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.

resultsSix studies including 414 patients and 436 superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions that underwent ESTD were available for analysis. The pooled estimates of en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate were 98% (95% CI 95.8-99.0%), 87.0% (95% CI 78.2-92.5%), and 87.6% (95% CI 67.4-96.0%), respectively. The pooled outcomes of muscular damage rate, perforation rate, postprocedural bleeding rate and emphysema rate were 19.1% (95% CI 9.8-33.8%), 2.2% (95% CI 1.1-4.1%), 1.6% (95% CI 0.7-3.5%), and 12.2% (95% CI 4.3-29.9%), respectively. Finally, the pooled results of recurrence and stricture were 4.7% (0.9-20.5%) and 20.9% (11.3-35.2%), respectively.

conclusionsESTD appears to be an effective and feasible approach for treating superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. However, future research is needed for new and comprehensive methods to decrease the stricture rate after ESTD.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionConstriction, PathologicEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagusHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative HemorrhageTreatment OutcomeEndoscopic submucosal dissectionEndoscopic submucosal tunnel dissectionESDESTDSuperficial esophageal lesions

Identifiers

PMID31161293
OpenAlexW2948468489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.