SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection vs. Surgery for Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06060106 (Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Esophagectomy for Early Esophageal Carcinoma：a Cohort Study), which is not on this 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.
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Esophagectomy for Early Esophageal Carcinoma：a Cohort Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of long vs. short fasting after ESD/STER for esophageal tumors ≤ 2 cm: a propensity score-matching study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Review
- Endoscopic submucosal dissectionTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality across the world. Only one systematic review and meta-analysis has attempted to compare the morbidity and mortality outcomes in superficial esophageal squamous cancer patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and esophagectomy (ESO), but with several limitations. This study aimed at comparing the outcomes of hospital stay duration, procedure duration, recurrence, complications, all-cause mortality, short-term survival, and long-term survival in patients with superficial esophageal squamous cancer undergoing ESD and ESO. Methods: Six databases (Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and MEDLINE) were systematically searched according to PRISMA guidelines for eligible studies. With the available literature, we conducted a random-effect meta-analysis to evaluate weighted effect size and odds ratios to determine the comparative morbidity and mortality outcomes between patients with superficial esophageal squamous cancer undergoing ESD and ESO. Results: We found 16 eligible studies detailing 5,213 and 8,049 age- and sex-matched patients undergoing ESD and ESO, respectively. Meta-analysis revealed reduced hospital stay (Hedge's g: -1.22) and procedure duration (g: -4.54) for patients undergoing ESD. We also observed significantly reduced risks for complications (odds ratio: 0.35) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.56) in patients undergoing ESD. Differences in recurrence (OR: 0.95), short-term outcomes (OR: 1.10), and long-term survival (OR: 0.81) outcomes were not significantly different between ESD and ESO. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides evidence concerning the improved morbidity and mortality outcomes in superficial esophageal squamous cancer patients undergoing ESD as compared to ESO. The findings herein may aid in developing clinical awareness and assisting best practice guideline development for managing superficial esophageal squamous cancer. Registration: PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, CRD42021286212.
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.