Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39509015›Full record

ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2025

The Current Landscape of Endoscopic Submucosal Training in the United States.

Mike T Wei, Shai Friedland, Joo Ha Hwang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mike T WeiStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. mtwei@stanford.edu.
Shai FriedlandStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Joo Ha HwangStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been found to increase en bloc and R0 resection as well as decrease risk of recurrence. However, despite literature supporting the benefits of endoscopic submucosal dissection, adoption of ESD in the United States has been challenging, driven by factors including requirement for specialized training as well as limitations in training availability. RECENT

findingsMany devices have been developed to improve ease and therefore adoption for the procedure, with advancements in stability, resection as well as closure of the mucosal defect following resection. While the Japanese model of training in ESD centers around the Master-Apprentice model, this is scarce in the United States. Most US endoscopists therefore must follow other paths to learn and become proficient at ESD. There has been a rapid expansion in literature on ESD, fellowship programs, opportunities for case observation, and significant evolution in ex vivo training models that can assist an endoscopist in receiving training in ESD. Currently, there are three main ways of learning to perform ESD in the United States: 1. Third space endoscopy fellowship; 2. Master-apprentice model; 3. Utilization of live courses and proctored procedures. ESD is the optimal method to ensure en bloc resection of large mucosal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. While several barriers hinder adoption of ESD in the United States, there has been significant development both in procedural and training aspects. Further research and discussions are needed to determine criteria for credentialing and proficiency in ESD.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionClinical CompetenceEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFellowships and ScholarshipsHumansUnited StatesColonoscopyEndoscopic mucosal resectionEndoscopic submucosal dissectionTrainingUpper endoscopy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.