Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31493041›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2020

Cost of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Endoscopic Piecemeal Mucosal Resection in the Colorectum.

Nam Seok Ham, Jeongseok Kim, Eun Hye Oh, Sung Wook Hwang, Sang Hyoung Park, Dong-Hoon Yang, Byong Duk Ye, Seung-Jae Myung, Suk-Kyun Yang, Jeong-Sik Byeon

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Nam Seok HamDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Jeongseok KimDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Eun Hye OhDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Sung Wook HwangDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Sang Hyoung ParkDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Dong-Hoon YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Byong Duk YeDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Seung-Jae MyungDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Suk-Kyun YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea.
Jeong-Sik ByeonDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea. jsbyeon@amc.seoul.kr.ORCID 0000-0001-7756-2704
Ulsan College · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew studies have compared the costs of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR).

aimsHere, we aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of these approaches by analyzing clinical outcomes and costs.

methodsData from patients undergoing colorectal ESD and EPMR were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes (procedure time, complete resection, and recurrence) were compared, and total direct costs (procedural and follow-up) were assessed.

resultsData from 429 ESD and 115 EPMR patients were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate was significantly higher (83.9% vs. 32.2%, p < 0.001), recurrence rate was lower (0.5% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001), procedure time was longer (55.4 ± 47.0 vs. 25.6 ± 32.7 min, p < 0.001), and total direct procedural costs at the initial resection were higher (1480.0 ± 728.0 vs. 729.8 ± 299.7 USD, p < 0.001) in the ESD group than in the EPMR group. The total number of surveillance endoscopies was higher in the EPMR group (1.7 ± 1.5 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1, p = 0.003). The cumulative total costs of ESD and EPMR were comparable at 3 and 2 years' follow-up in the adenoma and mucosal/superficial submucosal cancer subgroups, respectively.

conclusionsColorectal ESD was associated with higher complete resection and lower recurrence rates. EPMR showed shorter procedure times and similar cumulative total direct costs. ESD or EPMR should be chosen based on both clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeColorectal neoplasmCostEndoscopic mucosal resectionEndoscopic submucosal dissection

Identifiers

PMID31493041
OpenAlexW2972018115

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.