SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2019
Short-term outcomes of traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Procedural efficiency and safety of traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric tumors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Optimizing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Meta-Analysis of the S-O Clip's Impact on Procedural Outcomes and Lesion-Specific Applications.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- A network meta-analysis of strategies for endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures from the perspectives of efficacy, duration and safety.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- The application effect of rubber band traction assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal precancerous lesions.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Giant gastric leiomyoma excision using endoscopic submucosal dissection with dental floss clip traction technique: a case report.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Tented elevation with numerous tractions (TENT) technique to aid endoscopic submucosal dissection of a large cecal lesion.Endoscopy · 2024Article
- Conventional versus rubber band traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center retrospective study (with video).Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- 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
- Advancing endoscopic traction techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- How does lesion size affect the pooled effect of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection on procedure time? A meta-regression.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection: an update on tools and accessories.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, some traction-assisted approaches have been introduced to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures by reducing the procedure time and risks related to the procedure. However, the relative advantages of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (T-ESD) are still being debated. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of T-ESD for the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library up to March 31, 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing T-ESD and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. The main endpoints are en bloc resection, complete resection, procedure time, perforation, and delayed bleeding. Pooled risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio (OR), and mean difference (MD) were calculated to compare T-ESD and C-ESD. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018108135.
resultsA total of 7 RCTs with 1007 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the T-ESD and C-ESD groups in the pooled estimate of en bloc resection, complete resection, and delayed bleeding (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.99, 1.01, I
conclusionsT-ESD is a safe and effective treatment option with a low perforation rate and shorter procedure time than C-ESD for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. Future multi-center (including European populations), randomized controlled trials of larger sample size and long-term outcomes of T-ESD are required.
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.