ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- High Risk of Colorectal Cancer After High-Grade Dysplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Large colorectal lesions: Expanding the boundaries of endoscopic management.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Colitis-Associated Dysplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Features and Endoscopic Management.Cancers · 2025Review
- Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Aspects of Colitis-Associated Cancer in Ulcerative Colitis.Cells · 2025Review
- Gastrointestinal endoscopy for intestinal dysplasia and neoplasia detection and management in Crohn's disease: when and how?Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsIn this meta-analysis, we studied the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
methodsMultiple databases were searched, and studies were retrieved based on pre-specified criteria until October 2022. The outcomes assessed were resection rates, procedural complications, local recurrence, metachronous tumors, and the need for surgery after ESD in IBD. Standard meta-analysis methods were followed using the random-effects model, and I2% was used to assess heterogeneity.
resultsTwelve studies comprising 291 dysplastic lesions in 274 patients were included with a median follow-up of 25 months. The pooled en-bloc resection, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 92.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.9%-95.4%; I2=0%), 81.5% (95% CI, 72.5%-88%; I2=43%), and 48.9% (95% CI, 32.1%-65.9%; I2=87%), respectively. The local recurrence rate was 3.9% (95% CI, 2%-7.5%; I2=0%). The pooled rates of bleeding and perforation were 7.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-13%; I2=10%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-8.9%; I2=0%), respectively. The rates of metachronous recurrence and additional surgery following ESD were 10% (95% CI, 5.2%-18.2%; I2=55%) and 13% (95% CI, 8.5%-19.3%; I2=54%), respectively.
conclusionsESD is safe and effective for the resection of dysplastic lesions in IBD with an excellent pooled rate of en-bloc and R0 resection.
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.