Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40319201›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2025

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection with Rubber Bands and Clips Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abdelaziz A Awad, Hazem Abosheaishaa, Malak A Hassan, Mohamed Mahmoud Marey, Ahmed Bahnasy, Rashad G Mohamed, Menna A Keshk, Yousef Radwan Alnomani, Manar A Balouz, Ahmed Abdelgayed M Hussein and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

16 authors.

Abdelaziz A AwadFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Hazem AbosheaishaaIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Malak A HassanFaculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Mohamed Mahmoud MareyFaculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Ahmed BahnasyHematology and Oncology Department, Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Rashad G MohamedMansoura Manchester Program for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Menna A KeshkFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
Yousef Radwan AlnomaniFaculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt.
Manar A BalouzFaculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt.
Ahmed Abdelgayed M HusseinAl-Azhar Faculty of Medicine for Men, Asyut, Egypt.
Fatma S MohamedFaculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohammed A AlaebFaculty of Medicine, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya.
Mohamed S SharafNYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Omar T AhmedDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. oahmed22@uic.edu.
Nigar NeknamIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Sherif AndrawesZucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rising number of gastrointestinal (GI) tumors, including esophageal, gastric, and colorectal tumors, makes it essential to develop more effective treatment methods. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a popular intervention due to its ability to resect the tumor completely and prevent local recurrence. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of ESD with rubber bands and clips (ESD-RBC) in the treatment of various GI tumors. We systematically searched Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane databases until April 20, 2024. Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies focusing on ESD-RBC alone or compared to conventional ESD (C-ESD) in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan and R software. ESD-RBC was superior to C-ESD in achieving R0 resection and en bloc resection (OR: 1.99 with 95% CI [1.17 to 3.36], P = 0.01, I

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionGastrointestinal NeoplasmsSurgical InstrumentsHumansRubberTreatment OutcomeRubberClipsEn bloc resectionESDR0 resectionRubber bandSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40319201
PMCPMC12367878

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.