ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
Tip-in versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for flat colorectal neoplasia 10 mm or larger in size.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic mucosal resection using anchored snare Tip-in versus precut technique for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Trial
- New chapter in precision medicine: strategies for endoscopic resection of 10-20 mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Endoscopic treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumor: which method is better?Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
- Anchoring the snare tip is a feasible endoscopic mucosal resection method for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Modified endoscopic mucosal resection techniques for treating precancerous colorectal lesions.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, Tip-in EMR, was recently introduced to enhance the complete resection of colorectal neoplasia (CRN). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of Tip-in EMR for flat CRNs.
methodsFrom January to September 2018, conventional or Tip-in EMR was consecutively performed for 112 flat CRNs ≥ 10 mm in diameter. Tip-in EMR was performed when en bloc snaring was impossible with conventional EMR or when a lesion was inadequately lifted owing to a previous forceps biopsy. We retrospectively collected the clinical, procedural, and histologic data of the conventional and Tip-in EMR groups and compared the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and complications between the two groups.
resultsAmong 112 flat CRNs of 80 patients, conventional EMR and Tip-in EMR were performed for 74 and 38 lesions, respectively. The median lesion size was 12 (10-27) mm. Tip-in EMR was superior to conventional EMR in terms of en bloc resection (94.7% vs. 77.0%, p = 0.018) and histologic complete resection (76.3% vs. 54.1%, p = 0.022). There was no difference in postprocedural bleeding between the two groups; however, overall adverse events, including bleeding and postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome, were more frequent in the Tip-in EMR group.
conclusionsTip-in EMR is a feasible technique for flat colorectal lesions ≥ 10 mm and is superior to conventional EMR with respect to en bloc and complete resection rates. The safety profiles of Tip-in EMR and conventional EMR should be compared via large-scale prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32347341What 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.