Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36384472›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022

Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: a retrospective case-control study.

Xingbin Ma, Huaiyuan Ma, Tao Gao, Jingrun Cao, Chengxia Liu, Qiong Niu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xingbin Ma *Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, No. 661 Huanghe 2nd Road, Binzhou, Shandong Province, China.
Huaiyuan Ma *Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, No. 661 Huanghe 2nd Road, Binzhou, Shandong Province, China.
Tao GaoDepartment of Endoscopy Center, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou, Shandong Province, China.
Jingrun CaoDepartment of Endoscopy Center, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, Binzhou, Shandong Province, China.
Chengxia LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, No. 661 Huanghe 2nd Road, Binzhou, Shandong Province, China.
Qiong NiuDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, No. 661 Huanghe 2nd Road, Binzhou, Shandong Province, China. byfyniuqiong@163.com.
Binzhou Medical University · CNBinzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDual-clip and rubber band-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (DCRB-ESD) is a useful technique in the management of lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) of the colon and is suggested by researchers compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD). The aim of this retrospective study is to further analyze the efficiency and safety of DCRB-ESD in a setting with varying technical difficulties.

methodsPatients who underwent endoscopic treatment (DCRB-ESD or C-ESD) due to LSTs between Jan 1st, 2019 and Jan 1st, 2022, were retrospectively collected. Patients were classified into the following two groups: the DCRB-ESD group (n = 46) and the C-ESD group (n = 81). Baselines were compared and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to manage the heterogeneity. The technical difficulty and outcomes of the two groups were evaluated based on a semiquantitative model (CS-CRESD) previously described.

resultsThe baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced except sex and LST classification before PSM and were corrected after PSM. The median ESD operation time of DCRB-ESD was shorter than that of C-ESD (32 vs 41 and 30 vs 44 before and after PSM respectively, P < 0.05). The operation durations of cases with different CS-CRESD scores were different (P < 0.05). In the subgroup with a score of 0, DCRB-ESD showed no advantage than C-ESD in terms of operation duration before and after PSM. In subgroups with a score of 1-3, DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD. In subgroups with a score of 4-5, the between-group operation duration was not significantly different due to the limited number of cases, although the median time of DCRB-ESD was shorter. The R0 resection rates, curative resection, complications, and additional surgery in both groups were not significantly different. No adverse events, such as a clip falling off or rubber band rupturing occurred during this study.

conclusionDCRB-ESD was an efficient and safe procedure in the management of colonic LSTs. With DCRB-ESD, the operation duration of difficult cases can be shortened without sacrificing complication risk. However, not all cases would benefit from DCRB-ESD. For easy cases (CS-CRESD score = 0), DCRB-ESD may not be prior to C-ESD by experienced endoscopists. A pre-ESD technical difficulty evaluation was recommended to decide whether to perform DCRB-ESD or not.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesColonoscopyHumansRetrospective StudiesSurgical InstrumentsTreatment OutcomeComparisonDual-clip and rubber band-assistedEndoscopic submucosal dissectionLateral spreading tumorPropensity score matching

Identifiers

PMID36384472
PMCPMC9670629
OpenAlexW4309322147

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.