ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2020
Endoscopic mucosal resection
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of endoscopic submucosal dissection as a treatment option for duodenal tumors ≥ 20 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis by lesion size.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for duodenal cancer 2025.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- A method of "Noninjecting Resection using Bipolar Soft coagulation mode; NIRBS" for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor: a pilot study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Article
- Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Duodenal and Ampullary Adenomas.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe selection of endoscopic treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is controversial.
aimTo compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for SNADETs.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with SNADETs from a database of endoscopic treatment for SNADETs, which included eight hospitals in Fukuoka, Japan, between April 2001 and October 2017. A total of 142 patients with SNADETs treated with EMR or ESD were analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for the differences in the patient characteristics between the two groups. We analyzed the treatment outcomes, including the rates of
resultsTwenty-eight pairs of patients were created. The characteristics of patients between the two groups were similar after matching. The EMR group had a significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay than those of the ESD group [median procedure time (interquartile range): 6 (3-10.75) min
conclusionEMR has significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay than ESD, and provides acceptable curability and safety compared to ESD. Accordingly, EMR for SNADETs is associated with lower medical costs.
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.