ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Diagnostic yield of deep biopsy via endoscopic submucosal dissection for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Submucosal saline injection-assisted endoscopic ultrasonography for accurate layer identification of a rectal subepithelial lesion.Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Utility and advantage of the unroofing technique for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.DEN open · 2024Article
- Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Localized gastric amyloidosis diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Controversies in EUS: Do we need miniprobes?Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Retrospective analysis of the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the diagnosis and treatment of subepithelial lesions in a center with high expertise.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventionally, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA)/EUS-FNB) has been used for tissue diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, deep biopsy (DB) via endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is emerging as an alternative technique, given the inadequate tissue sampling with EUS-FNA/EUS-FNB. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall diagnostic yield of DB via ESD for upper GI SETs.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies (from commencement to Oct 2017) that reported the DB via ESD technique for diagnosis of upper GI SETs. The primary outcome of interest was the method's overall diagnostic yield and the secondary outcome was to the occurrence of complications. The meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.
resultsA total of 7 studies, comprising 209 patients with a mean age of 57.3 years, were included in the final meta-analysis. The overall pooled diagnostic yield of DB via ESD for upper GI SETs was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.91-99.98, I
conclusionDB via ESD is an effective and safe procedure for diagnosing upper GI SETs. Further multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.
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.