ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal-sigmoid laterally spreading tumors ≥10 cm: an analysis of 10 cases.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of injection mucosa knife versus conventional techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fishbone ingestion is a non-negligible cause of intestinal perforation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Resections Larger than 10 cm: Outcomes from a Portuguese Center.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a standard method for treating selected colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). However, technical difficulty occurs with the increase in tumor size, and little is known about the efficacy of ESD treatment in colorectal LSTs ≥10 cm. The present study aimed to report the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of ESD for rectal-sigmoid LSTs ≥10 cm.
methodsFrom May 2012 to December 2019, patients with rectal-sigmoid LSTs ≥10 cm and underwent colorectal ESD were enrolled retrospectively. Demographic features, procedure-related parameters (procedure time, adverse events, rate of en bloc resection and complete resection), and follow-up results were recorded and analyzed.
resultsA total of 10 patients successfully underwent ESD: nine patients received conventional ESD, while the other one underwent tunneling ESD. The median diameter of the LSTs was 11.5 cm, and the median procedure time was 210 minutes. The rates of en bloc and curative resection rates were 100% and 90%, respectively. Of the ten patients, four had developed adverse events, one had intraoperative bleeding, two patients had delayed bleeding, and the other one had postoperative fever and rectum stricture postoperatively. None of the patients experienced recurrence during a median follow-up of 62 months.
conclusionsESD can be used as a feasible, safe and effective treatment modality for the management of rectal-sigmoid LSTs ≥10 cm.
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.