Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31953724›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2021

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colon and rectum using an over-the-scope device: a meta-analysis.

Peiwen Li, Bin Ma, Shulei Gong, Xinyu Zhang, Wenya Li

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRDDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Endoscopic management of difficult laterally spreading tumors in colorectum.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peiwen LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 North Nanjing Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Bin MaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Cancer Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 44 Xiaoheyan Road, Dadong District, Shenyang, 110042, Liaoning Province, People's Republic of China.
Shulei GongDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 North Nanjing Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Xinyu ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 North Nanjing Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China.
Wenya LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155 North Nanjing Street, Shenyang, 110001, People's Republic of China. saint5288@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0643-4243
First Hospital of China Medical University · CNLiaoning Cancer Hospital & Institute · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRelevant publications were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science before December 1, 2019. Studies in which ≥ 10 cases of colorectal lesions were resected with endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) were included. Rates of efficacy (technical success (en bloc), full-thickness resection and R0 resection), rates of safety (bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome) and rates of follow-up (residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of over-the-scope clip and surgery for any reason) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were graphed based on random effects models. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.

resultsA total of 469 patients across 9 studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled rates of technical success, full-thickness resection and R0 resection were 94.0% (95% CI 89.8-97.3%), 89.5% (83.9-94.2%) and 84.9% (75.1-92.8%), respectively. The pooled estimates of bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome were 2.2% (95% CI 0.4-4.9%), 0.19% (95% CI 0.00-1.25%) and 2.3% (95% CI 0.1-6.3%), respectively. Finally, the pooled rates of residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of OTSC and surgery for any reason were 8.5% (95% CI 4.1-14.0%), 80.3% (95% CI 67.5-90.8%) and 6.3% (2.4-11.7%), respectively.

conclusionsEFTR for nonlifting, invasive lesions in the colon and rectum appears to be effective and safe. However, future studies are necessary to explore the role of EFTR in large colorectal lesions and specify its indications.

Indexed as

ColonEndoscopyHumansRectumRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeColorectal lesionEndoscopic full-thickness resectionFull-thickness resection deviceOver-the-scope clip

Identifiers

PMID31953724
OpenAlexW2998750469

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.