Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39995839›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025

Efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery for early rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Chunqiang Wang, Tianye Huang, Xuebing Wang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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.

Chunqiang WangAffiliated Xiaoshan Hospital, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Tianye HuangThe First Medical University of Shandong Affiliated Linyi Hospital, Linyi, Shandong, China.
Xuebing WangThe First Medical University of Shandong Affiliated Taian Hospital, Taian, Shandong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The gold standard for the treatment of rectal cancer is radical surgery with total mesorectal excision (TME). As one of the alternatives to radical surgery, local resection has been proposed for the treatment of early rectal cancer. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in the treatment of early rectal cancer. Methods: By searching the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, we selected all articles on TEM for early rectal cancer. Two researchers independently completed the entire process from screening, inclusion to data extraction and performed statistical analysis using RevMan 5.3. The primary outcomes included basic patient characteristics, overall survival rate, disease-free survival rate, disease-specific survival rate, recurrence rate, and complication rate and type. Results: A total of 33 articles were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the overall survival rate was 100% for T0 stage, 98.1% for Tis (carcinoma Conclusion: The results showed that TEM has a high postoperative survival rate, low recurrence rate, and low complication rate in the T0 stage, Tis stage, and T1 stage, indicating its good safety and efficacy. For the treatment of T2 stage, TEM has a lower overall survival rate and a higher recurrence rate. Our meta-analysis results suggest that TEM alone is not recommended as a curative treatment for T2 stage; on the contrary, TME is more frequently recommended.

Indexed as

early rectal cancerendoscopic surgerylocal excisionsafety and efficacytransanal endoscopic microsurgery

Identifiers

PMID39995839
PMCPMC11847824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.