ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Is endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection better than endoscopic submucosal dissection in treating large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The resection of large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (SENLs) presents significant challenges for traditional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) has emerged as an alternative that potentially reduces resection difficulty. Objectives: We aimed to compare ESTD and ESD in the treatment of large SENLs. Design: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources and methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Wanfang Data for RCTs comparing ESTD with ESD for large SENLs until July 1, 2024. The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework was used to assess the certainty of the evidence, whereas trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to control for random errors and evaluate conclusion validity. Results: Four RCTs involving 315 patients were included. The pooled analysis showed that ESTD was significantly faster than ESD (mean differences 5.06, 95% confidence interval: 3.31-6.80; Conclusion: With low certainty, ESTD appears superior to ESD for large SENLs, offering faster resection and fewer complications, with similar en bloc and curative resection rates. Trial registration: This meta-analysis protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024520754).
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.