ArticleWorld journal of surgery2020
Task Deconstruction of Colonic Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (cESD): An Expert Consensus.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of early gastrointestinal lesions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2026Article
- The deconstructed procedural description in robotic colorectal surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSlow adoption of colonic ESD (cESD) in the US is multifactorial due to: lack of clinical training construct (e.g., gastric ESD in Japan), complication risks, and technical difficulty. More than 28,000 patients/year undergo colonic resection for benign lesions that could be managed effectively with cESD. Selected patients could avoid surgery if procedural adoption of cESD increased due to more accessible training. Current US cESD training is scarce, and existing programs are piecemeal. There is a need to develop an effective national training program for practicing endoscopists. A prerequisite to training development is a comprehensive task list delineating procedural steps. The aim of this work was to describe an evidence-based method of deconstructing cESD into the essential steps to provide a task list to guide teaching and assessment.
methodsSubject-matter experts (SMEs) performed a literature review to create an initial procedural step list. Eleven clinical cESD SMEs and four educational SMEs formed a 'cESD Working Group' to develop consensus regarding steps. Through a two-stage modified Delphi process, a consensus on a comprehensive standard cESD deconstructed task list was reached. The aim was to standardize cESD teaching to efficiently bring a novice to safe performance.
resultsA literature review identified eight initial cESD steps. First-round Delphi consensus was gained on seven steps. Semi-structured focus group discussions resulted in consensus on a modified version of 7 of the initial steps, with addition of two steps. Consensus on procedural actions needed to perform each step was achieved after the hands-on laboratory. The final result was a ten-step deconstructed task list for standard cESD.
conclusionThe development of a standardized cESD procedural task list provides a foundation to safely and efficiently teach cESD to practicing endoscopists. This list can be used to develop a training pathway to increase procedural adoption. Selected patients currently undergoing colonic resections could benefit from increased adoption of cESD.
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.