ArticleDEN open2022
Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Advantages of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device compared to conventional EMR and ESD.
Article in DEN open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection combined with band ligation versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (≤ 10 mm): a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Endoscopic mucosal resection using anchored snare Tip-in versus precut technique for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Trial
- [Rectal neuroendocrine tumors of the rectum: update on endoscopic and surgical treatment].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Efficacy, Safety and Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Approaches (EMR, ESD and TAMIS) for Early Rectal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and modified endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Optimal endoscopic resection method based on vertical margin distance for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Propensity score-matched study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Risk of perforation related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Is this finally predictable?Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2024Article
- Review
- Review
- Rectal neuroendocrine tumours and the role of emerging endoscopic techniques.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Review
- Risk factors of post-polypectomy bleeding and recurrence in children with colorectal polyps after endoscopic mucosal resection: a retrospective cohort study.Translational pediatrics · 2022Article
- Endoscopic treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumor: which method is better?Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: There are some endoscopic resection (ER) methods for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), however, which method is most useful remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different ER techniques, such as conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) for rectal NETs. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 96 consecutive patients with 102 rectal NETs of less than 10 mm in diameter who underwent ER between January 2001 and December 2019 at Hiroshima University Hospital. We compared the clinical outcomes of each ER method (cEMR 60 lesions, ESD 21 lesions, and ESMR-L 21 lesions), divided according to the treatment periods, and evaluated the risk factors for vertical margin (VM) positivity in relation to clinicopathological and endoscopic characteristics. Results: As for the mean procedure time, ESD took significantly longer to perform than the other methods. The histological complete resection rate was 80% (48/60) for cEMR, 85.7% (18/21) for ESD, and 100% (21/21) for ESMR-L, and the VM positive rate was 20% (12/60) for cEMR, 14.3% (3/21) for ESD, and 0% (0/21) for ESMR-L, with no significant difference. However, the tumor-front-to-VM distance was significantly longer in the ESMR-L group than in the cEMR and ESD groups. cEMR and ESD were both significant risk factors for VM positivity. No perforation or local recurrence was observed in all methods. Conclusions: ESMR-L is the most useful ER method for small rectal NETs.
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.