Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31887810›Full record

SynthesisGut and liver2020

Efficacy of Current Traction Techniques for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.

Seiichiro Abe, Shih Yea Sylvia Wu, Mai Ego, Hiroyuki Takamaru, Masau Sekiguchi, Masayoshi Yamada, Satoru Nonaka, Taku Sakamoto, Haruhisa Suzuki, Shigetaka Yoshinaga and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gut and liver, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Seiichiro AbeEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-2736-6921
Shih Yea Sylvia WuEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-1679-682X
Mai EgoEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3620-0907
Hiroyuki TakamaruEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7019-6331
Masau SekiguchiEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-6253-6896
Masayoshi YamadaEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3979-5560
Satoru NonakaEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-0925-9137
Taku SakamotoEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-0239-4977
Haruhisa SuzukiEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2284-0943
Shigetaka YoshinagaEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-2368-878X
Takahisa MatsudaEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9244-2820
Ichiro OdaEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5252-4197
Yutaka SaitoEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2296-8373
National Cancer Center Hospital East · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of the current approach to tissue traction during the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal cancer, early gastric cancer, and colorectal neoplasms. We performed a systematic electronic literature search of articles published in PubMed and selected comparative studies to investigate the treatment outcomes of tractionassisted versus conventional ESD. Using the keywords, we retrieved 381 articles, including five eligible articles on the esophagus, 13 on the stomach, and 12 on the colorectum. A total of seven randomized controlled trials and 23 retrospective studies were identified. Clip line traction and submucosal tunneling were effective in reducing the procedural time during esophageal ESD. The efficacy of traction methods in gastric ESD varied in terms of the devices and strategies used depending on the lesion location and degree of submucosal fibrosis. Several prospective and retrospective studies utilized traction devices without the need to reinsert the colonoscope. When pocket creation is included, the traction devices and methods effectively shorten the procedural time during colorectal ESD. Although the efficacy is dependent on the organ and tumor locations, several traction techniques have been demonstrated to be efficacious in facilitating ESD by maintaining satisfactory traction during dissection.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionDissectionHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesTractionTreatment OutcomeColorectal neoplasmsEarly gastric cancerEndoscopic submucosal dissectionEsophageal neoplasmsTraction

Identifiers

PMID31887810
PMCPMC7667936
OpenAlexW2998091146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.