ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Safety of endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic polyps in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes of Colorectal Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection Using the Full-Thickness Resection Device: A Multicenter Study.DEN open · 2027Article
- Risk factors and clinical prediction models for short-term recurrence after endoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal polyps.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Efficacy-cost analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and cold snare polypectomy: A propensity score matching analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical characteristics of acute non-varicose upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the effect of endoscopic hemostasis.World journal of clinical cases · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a procedure commonly used for large sessile and flat polyps. However, it may cause bleeding, perforation, and complications related to anesthesia. There are limited data on the safety and efficacy of EMR in the elderly. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to assess EMR safety in elderly patients. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection for studies evaluating EMR for large colorectal lesions (>20 mm) in older patients (75+ years). Our primary result was post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation, while our secondary outcome was recurrence or residual polyp. Results: The meta-analysis included 6 studies with 2903 patients. The rate of post-polypectomy bleeding was 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3-11.7%), Conclusion: EMR is as safe for the elderly as it is for younger patients, and is not associated with a greater risk of bleeding or perforation.
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.