ReviewTranslational cancer research2022
Endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors in East Asian countries: a systematic review.
Review in Translational cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic resection methods for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) in East Asian countries. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Colorectal LSTs of the included studies were resected with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The main outcomes involved rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events and recurrence. Results: A total of 20 studies were finally included in the present study. The total number of lesions were 3,903 (EMR: 1,230, ESD: 2,673). EMR-en bloc resection was obtained in 395/591 (66.8%), with ESD-en bloc resection reported in 2,020/2,265 (89.2%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.244, P<0.0001, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.197-0.304]. EMR-R0 resection was achieved in 409/547 (74.8%), which was lower than that of ESD (1,895/2,241, 84.6%) (OR 0.541, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 0.432-0.677). Bleedings occurred more frequently in EMR than in ESD group (10.4% Discussion: Endoscopic resections of colorectal LSTs are safe and effective. ESD leads to higher rates of en bloc and R0 resection, as well as lower rates of bleeding and recurrence, but it has a high risk of perforation, compared with EMR.
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.