ReviewEndoscopy international open2020
Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Endoscopy international open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cold versus hot polypectomy/endoscopic mucosal resection-A review of current evidence.United European gastroenterology journal · 2021Pooled it
- Outcomes for Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of 21-30-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Feasible Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Trial
- Optimizing detection and resection of colorectal polyps.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety ranking of endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- [Technical advances in endoscopic resection : Potential, limits and the necessary interdisciplinary dialogue with surgery].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Efficacy of water pressure method for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Propensity-score matching analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Underwater EMR in the reconstructed gastric conduit after esophagectomy.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2024Article
- Safety and efficacy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.Endoscopy international open · 2023Review
- Longly-attached cap can contribute to en bloc underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of 20-30 mm colorectal intramucosal lesions.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (with videos): a single center retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Resection depth: a very important advantage for underwater EMR.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Heat sink effect of underwater polypectomy in a porcine colon model.BMC gastroenterology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.