Trial reportScientific reports2024
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is superior to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for medium-sized colorectal sessile polyps: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Of Endpoints and Equipoise: Reforming Clinical Trials in Colorectal Polyp Resection.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- [Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Non-pedunculated Colorectal Lesions: A Prospective Series in a Tertiary Center in Peru].Acta gastroenterologica LatinoamericanaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The comparison of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) in the treatment of medium-sized (10 mm ≤ diameter ≤ 20 mm) colorectal sessile polyps is unknown. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR and CEMR in the treatment of medium-sized colorectal sessile polyps. 200 patients with medium-sized colorectal sessile polyps were randomly divided into UEMR group and CEMR group equally. The resection rates, patient tolerance and complications of the two groups were evaluated. The R0 resection rate (73.3% vs. 56.3%, P = 0.011) and the En bloc resection rate (91.1% vs. 80.6%, P = 0.032) of the UEMR group were significantly higher than those of the CEMR group; The mean abdominal pain score of the UEMR group was significantly lower than that of the CEMR group [(3.2 ± 1.9) vs. (4.1 ± 2.1), P = 0.006]; There was no significant difference in the intraoperative bleeding rate between the two groups (4.0% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.516). There was no delayed bleeding and perforation in both groups. UEMR was effective in the treatment of medium-sized sessile colorectal polyps with few complications, and patient tolerance was good, which is worthy of clinical promotion.The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400082051) on 19/03/2024 and can be accessed at www.chictr.org.cn .
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.