ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
Comparison of scissor-type knife to non-scissor-type knife for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 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.
- Enhancing efficiency in ESD: a comparative analysis of ERBE VIO3 and 300d electrosurgical units.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Muscular Injury Is a Risk Factor for Post-Entire Circumferential Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Stricture.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Safety and efficacy of scissor-type knives in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: International multicenter observational study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Knives Out: Does the Choice of Endoscopic Knife Influence the Outcome of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection?Digestive diseases and sciences · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsScissor-type endoscopic submucosal dissection (ST-ESD) knives can reduce the adverse events associated with ESDs. This study aimed to compare ST-ESD and non-scissor-type (NST)-ESD knives.
methodsWe identified ten studies that compared the performance characteristics and safety profiles of ST-ESD and NST-ESD knives. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test.
resultsOn comparing ST-ESD knives to NST-ESD knives, the weighted odds of en bloc resection was 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-2.90; p=0.14), R0 resection was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.71-1.71; p=0.73), delayed bleeding was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.17-0.90; p=0.03), perforation was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.18-0.70; p<0.01) and ESD self-completion by non-experts was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.20-2.95; p<0.01). There was no heterogeneity, with an I2 score of 0% (95% CI, 0%-54.40%).
conclusionThe findings of reduced odds of perforation, a trend toward reduced delayed bleeding, and an improvement in the rates of en bloc and R0 resection with ST-ESD knives compared to NST-ESD knives support the use of ST-ESD knives when non-experts perform ESDs or as an adjunct tool for challenging ESD procedures.
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.