ArticleDEN open2024
Can underwater endoscopic mucosal resection be an alternative to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors?
Article in DEN open, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Underwater Endoscopic Resection for the Rare Periampullary Tumor.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Resection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors.Gut and liver · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a simpler procedure for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR). This study aimed to evaluate whether cEMR can be substituted by UEMR for SNADET in terms of effectiveness, safety, and learning curve. Methods: A total of 157 consecutive patients with 203 SNADETs ≤20 mm in diameter, including 107 lesions resected by cEMR and 96 lesions resected by UEMR, between January 2019 and May 2023, were retrospectively recruited. The treatment outcomes were compared between the cEMR and UEMR groups. The risk factors for incomplete resection by UEMR were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Lesions in the UEMR group were divided chronologically into five periods; thereafter, the en bloc resection rate and procedure time were compared. Results: No significant differences existed between the cEMR and UEMR groups in the mean procedure time (3.9 min vs. 3.6 min, Conclusion: UEMR is safe and effective for SNADET ≤20 mm, regardless of a history of biopsy, and is easy to learn. Thus, UEMR can serve as an alternative to cEMR.
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.