ArticleThe Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology2023
Effectiveness of Inner Traction-Facilitated Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Using Rubber Band and Clips for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.
Article in The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection with Rubber Bands and Clips Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Conventional versus rubber band traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center retrospective study (with video).Surgical endoscopy · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection is a technically demanding but effective treatment for superficial neoplasms. We conducted a study to compare the effectiveness and safety of inner traction-facilitated endoscopic submucosal dissection using rubber band and clip with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection.
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 622 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection between January 2016 and December 2019. To overcome selection bias, we used propensity score matching (1:4) between endoscopic submucosal dissection using rubber band and clip and conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection. The frequency of en bloc resections, R0 resections, curative resections, procedure speed, and complications were evaluated.
resultsAfter propensity score matching, 35 patients were included in the endoscopic submucosal dissection using rubber band and clip group and 140 were included in the conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection group. Endoscopic submucosal dissection using rubber band and clip resulted in a significant increase in resection speed (0.14 vs. 0.09 cm2/min; P = .003). There were no significant differences in en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates between the 2 groups. In subgroup analysis, the resection speed of endoscopic submucosal dissection using rubber band and clip was significantly higher than that of conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection when the lesions were equal to or larger than 2 cm, macroscopically presenting as lateral spreading tumor, and located in transverse colon to ascending colon.
conclusionsEndoscopic submucosal dissection using rubber band and clip is safe and effective in treating colorectal neoplasms, especially in lesions presenting a particular difficulty.
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.