ArticlePloS one2019
Construction of a preoperative scoring system to predict the difficulty level of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of the submucosal injection of lidocaine during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: a multicenter randomized controlled study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Trial
- A >30-cm circumferential rectal laterally spreading tumor treated with multitunnel endoscopic submucosal dissection and suturing.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Submucosal fibrosis in large colorectal serrated lesions in cases receiving endoscopic submucosal dissection.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Is colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection safe and effective for 15-19-mm tumors?International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe attempted to examine the factors contributing to the difficulty in performance of colorectal ESD, with the aim of constructing a scoring system that could help in prediction of the difficulty level of the procedure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The data were analyzed from two viewpoints: to determine the factors contributing to 1) non-en bloc resection and the factors contributing to 2) a slow resection speed. Factors falling under these two categories contributing to difficulty in performance of ESD were extracted and used to construct a scoring system. The validity of this scoring system was evaluated by calculating the correlation between the score and the resection speed in a different dataset.
resultsBased on the results of our analysis, we assigned scores for various factors as follows: 4 points for EMR of a scarred lesion, 1 point for tumors with a diameter of ≥ 30 mm, 2 points for lesions located in the liver/splenic flexure, 1 point for lesions located in the transverse colon, 3 points for LST-NG-PD/depressed lesions, 1 point for protruded lesions and LST-NG-F lesions (range 0-10). In the validation study, the rank correlation coefficient between the score according to the scoring system and the resection speed was -0.130, representing a weak and negative correlation (P = 0.03). We defined the difficulty level depending on the sum of the scores: 0-2, low difficulty level; 3-5, intermediate difficulty level; ≥ 6, high difficulty level. The average resection speed was 12.6 mm2/min in the group with scores of 0-2, 8.1 mm2/min in the group with scores of 3-5, and 5.5 mm2/min in the group with scores of ≥ 6 (11.2 mm2/min in all lesions).
conclusionOur colorectal ESD scoring system would be useful for selection of operators with the appropriate skill level in the procedure for colorectal ESD cases.
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.