SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2023
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Facilitating Techniques Among Non-experts: A Systematic Literature Review.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2023. 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, 1 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe dissemination of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been limited by its technical complexity and safety profile, particularly among non-experts. Various techniques and devices have facilitated the performance of ESD, but their yield and role in the path to learning ESD remain unclear.
methodsWe performed a systematic review by querying MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Japan Medical Abstracts Society specifically for comparative studies investigating the impact of assigned ESD techniques vs. conventional techniques among non-experts in ESD (< 50 ESD procedures). Procedural outcomes of efficacy, efficiency, and safety were assessed.
resultsWe identified 46 studies evaluating 54 cohorts in which a total 237 non-experts performed 2461 ESDs conventionally, and 1953 ESDs using an assigned ESD technique (knives, countertraction, miscellaneous techniques). The majority of studies were from East Asia (67%), single-center (96%), observational in design (61%), in an animal model (57%), and gastric location (63%). The most studied techniques were countertraction techniques (48% cohorts) and scissor knives (15% cohorts), both of which commonly enhanced efficiency of ESD, and less so efficacy or safety. Techniques found to be beneficial in experts were more likely to be beneficial in non-experts (70% concordance) than vice versa (47% concordance).
conclusionBased on the currently available literature, countertraction techniques and scissor knives should be considered for early incorporation into ESD training by non-experts. Several aspects of ESD training remain understudied, including techniques in Western non-experts, educational resources, and several commonly cited techniques. These areas should guide future investigation to enhance the pathway to learning ESD.
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.