ReviewCureus2021
Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic techniques for management of large colorectal polyps, strictures and leaks.Surgery open science · 2024Article
- Endoscopic resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: current standards of treatment.eGastroenterology · 2024Review
- Feasibility and Efficacy of Gastric Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Modified underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for intermediate-sized sessile colorectal polyps.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Feasibility of progressive polyp contraction with underwater endoscopic mucosal resection in ≥ 20 mm superficial colorectal lesions.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Best Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Article
- [Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Non-pedunculated Colorectal Lesions: A Prospective Series in a Tertiary Center in Peru].Acta gastroenterologica LatinoamericanaArticle
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 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) without submucosal injection was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (CEMR) and was reported to be useful for resecting large colonic polyps. Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of these two methods by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We comprehensively searched multiple databases until July 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR with CEMR. The primary outcomes were the proportion of R0 resection and mean procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were the proportion of en bloc resection and all adverse events. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in www.protocols.io (Protocol Integer ID: 40849). We included six RCTs (1,374 polyps). We judged that a meta-analysis was not available, and the data were summarized narratively for the proportion of R0 resection. Regarding procedure time, UEMR likely resulted in a large reduction (mean difference = -64.3 seconds; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -122.5 to -6.0 seconds; I
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.