ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2023
Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic mucosal dissection and resection in the treatment of early gastrointestinal cancer and precancerous lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Risk modeling of delayed postoperative bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colorectal cancer and precancerous lesions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- The efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal dissection for early gastrointestinal cancer and precancerous lesions.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic mucosal dissection (EMD) is a new treatment method. Whether its clinical efficacy and safety are superior to surgical resection is still controversial. The sample size of previous studies on EMD for the treatment of early cancer of digestive tract is small, and there is no reliable evidence at present. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EMD based on the evidence of evidence-based medicine. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, cqvip.com (VIP), websites and citation searching were searched to obtain relevant literature on EMD for early cancer and precancerous lesions of digestive tract. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to November 29th, 2022. Literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and data and data were extracted. The final included literature was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool, and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. Results: A total of 10 articles were included, with a total of 1,165 patients. Among these, 585 cases were treated with EMD and 580 cases were in the control group. The literature quality evaluation found that 5 articles had low risk of bias and 5 articles had unclear risk of bias. The results showed that the complete resection rate in the observation group was higher than that in the control group [risk ratio (RR) =1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-1.35, P<0.01]. Cumulative intraoperative blood loss (P<0.01), operation time (P<0.01), postoperative complications (P<0.01), hospital stay (P<0.01), and hospitalization expenses (P<0.01) in the observation group were lower than those in the control group. Conclusions: EMD for early gastrointestinal cancer and precancerous lesions can improve the complete resection rate of tumors; reduce intraoperative blood loss, complications, operation time, and hospitalization time and cost. However, due to the small number of literatures included in this paper, the quality of literatures is not high, and some results have heterogeneous interference, the conclusion needs to include more high-treatment studies for further study.
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.