SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2020
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping Two Decades of Research on Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Esophageal Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Article
- Is endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection better than endoscopic submucosal dissection in treating large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- A review of hydrogels used in endoscopic submucosal dissection for intraoperative submucosal cushions and postoperative management.Regenerative biomaterials · 2023Review
- Comparison between endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial neoplasia at esophagogastric junction: a case-matched controlled study of a single center from China.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPresently, endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) has been a novel therapy for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (SENL), especially for circumferential neoplastic lesions. A number of studies have reported the clinical application of ESTD with promising outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluated the efficacy and safety of ESTD for SENL .
methodsFrom 2013 to November 2018, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched to determine studies reporting ESTD treatment of SENL. Weighted pooled rates (WPR) were calculated for en bloc resection, R0 resection and complication of ESTD. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and pooled to compare the clinical outcomes of ESTD with ESD for SENL.
resultsA total of 9 studies involving 494 patients with 518 esophageal neoplastic lesions were included in our study. WPR for en bloc resection and R0 resection of ESTD was 97.0% (95% CI: 94.7-98.3%) and 84.1% (95% CI: 80.5-87.1%), respectively. WPR for complication was 40.0% (95% CI: 25.8-56.1%). Two studies with 265 patients compared the performance of ESTD with ESD. Pooled RR for en bloc resection and R0 resection was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.95-1.14, P = 0.42) and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.93-1.10, P = 0.73), respectively. Pooled RR for complication was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.46-1.01, P = 0.05).
conclusionOur study showed that ESTD is effective for treating SENL with high en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate, but accompanying by a relatively high complications.
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.