Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39669422›Full record

ArticleJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2024

Underwater Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Laterally Spreading Tumors: A Post Hoc Analysis of Efficacy.

Quang Dinh Le, Nhan Quang Le, Duc Trong Quach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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.

Quang Dinh LeDepartment of Internal Medicine University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7133-7258
Nhan Quang LeGI Endoscopy Department University Medical Center Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1322-3233
Duc Trong QuachDepartment of Internal Medicine University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0141-921X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) for the treatment of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR and CEMR in managing LSTs measuring 10-30 mm. Methods: A post hoc analysis was performed on 88 patients with 88 colorectal LSTs, who were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: 42 with CEMR and 46 with UEMR. The primary outcome was the rate of R0 resection, defined as the absence of neoplastic cells at the resection margin. The secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rates, procedure times, and postprocedural complications. The data were analyzed via chi-square tests, Results: No significant difference was found in the R0 resection rate between UEMR and CEMR. However, UEMR achieved a significantly higher en bloc resection rate, particularly for LSTs ranging from 20 to 30 mm (42.9% for CEMR vs. 100% for UEMR; Conclusions: Compared with CEMR, UEMR offers a higher en bloc resection rate and a shorter procedure time, particularly for larger lesions, without increasing the risk of complications. UEMR should be considered a preferred option for managing colorectal LSTs, especially those measuring 20-30 mm.

Indexed as

conventional endoscopic mucosal resectioncurative resectionen bloc resectionlaterally spreading tumorsunderwater endoscopic mucosal resection

Identifiers

PMID39669422
PMCPMC11636578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.