ReviewCureus2024
Conventional Versus Traction-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal, Gastric, and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Procedural efficiency and safety of traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric tumors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection in early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Clinical Outcomes of Traction-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Prepyloric and Pyloric Neoplasms: Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Gut and liver · 2026Article
- Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection enhances efficiency with comparable curative outcomes: a Bayesian meta-analysis, systematic review, and Monte Carlo simulation of randomized controlled trials.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Review
- Efficacy and safety of pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for treating rectal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Hand-suturing-assisted traction technique and closure in colon endoscopic submucosal dissection.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Optimization of traction-device length and traction force during gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection.Endoscopy international open · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly being utilized for the resection of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. However, the long procedure time poses a technical challenge for conventional ESD (C-ESD). Traction-assisted ESD (T-ESD) was developed to facilitate the procedure by reducing its duration. This study compares the efficacy and safety of C-ESD versus T-ESD in the treatment of esophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplasms. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed. Traction-assisted ESD exhibited shorter mean dissection times for the esophagus and colorectal regions and lower perforation rates in colorectal cases. No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection or bleeding rates. Traction-assisted ESD proves to be more efficient in mean procedure time for esophageal and colorectal cases and safer in perforation rates for colorectal cases, but similar rates are noted for en bloc resection or bleeding.
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.