SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2020
The safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for treating early oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2020. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound in Squamous Cell Esophageal Cancer: From Staging to Strategy-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Endoscopic full‑thickness resection with clip‑ and snare‑assisted traction for gastric submucosal tumours in the fundus: A single‑centre case series.Oncology letters · 2023Article
- Review
- Approach to Localized Squamous Cell Cancer of the Esophagus.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- Associated risk factor analysis and the prognostic impact of positive resection margins after endoscopic resection in early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOesophageal carcinoma is the sixth most lethal cancer in the world. At present, the choice of specific surgical methods is controversial. This study compares the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in treating early oesophageal carcinoma.
methodsWe carried out a search of online databases including the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library with no language restrictions. The inclusion criteria were patients with early oesophageal carcinoma who accepted the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection.
findingsA total of 1,462 patients with 1,650 lesions from nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with the endoscopic mucosal resection group, the en bloc resection (endoscopic submucosal dissection 67.94% vs endoscopic mucosal resection 52.78%; odds ratio 19.79,
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.