Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35310727›Full record

ReviewDEN open2022

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: Can it be an "Underwater" revolution?

Yoji Takeuchi, Satoki Shichijo, Noriya Uedo, Ryu Ishihara

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in DEN open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yoji TakeuchiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3814-298X
Satoki ShichijoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5750-0976
Noriya UedoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3029-9272
Ryu IshiharaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka Japan.
Osaka International Cancer Institute · JPOsaka International Cancer Institute · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newly developed technique for the removal of colorectal, duodenal, esophageal, gastric, ampullary, and small intestinal lesions. We performed a PubMed literature search for articles reporting UEMR outcomes for colorectal polyps. Four randomized controlled trials, nine non-randomized prospective trials, 16 retrospective studies, and 27 case reports were selected for assessment of the efficacy and safety of UEMR. We summarized the therapeutic outcomes of UEMR in each category according to the lesion characteristics [small size (<10 mm), intermediate size (10-19 mm), large size (≥20 mm), recurrent lesion, and rectal neuroendocrine tumor], and calculated the incidence of adverse events among the included articles. As the treatment outcomes for small polyps appeared similar between UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR), UEMR can be a standard procedure for small colorectal polyps suspicious for high-grade dysplasia to avoid incomplete removal of occult invasive cancer by cold snare polypectomy. As UEMR showed satisfactory outcomes for intermediate-size lesions and recurrent lesions after endoscopic resection, UEMR can be a standard procedure for these lesions. Regarding large lesions and rectal neuroendocrine tumors, comparisons of UEMR with current standard methods for them were lacking, and further investigations are warranted. Adverse events appeared comparable or less frequent for UEMR compared with CEMR but still existed. Therefore, careful implementation of this new technique in clinical practice is important for its widespread use.

Indexed as

adverse eventscolonic neoplasmscolonic polypscolonoscopic surgerycolonoscopy

Identifiers

PMID35310727
PMCPMC8828230
OpenAlexW4206790883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.