Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40611847›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2025

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia: Meta-analysis.

Maximilian Eisele, Alessandra Ceccacci, Mehul Gupta, Emily Heer, Sherif Elhanafi, Saowanee Ngamruengphong, Nirav Thosani, Jordan Iannuzzi, Puja Kumar, Paul Belletrutti and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07192627 (Selective Endoscopic Resection vs. Surveillance Following CRT for Rectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

NCT07192627 not yet recruitingnot on this map

Selective Endoscopic Resection vs. Surveillance Following CRT for Rectal Cancer: 1-Year Oncologic and Functional Outcomes

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2025 to 2028Enrolled20ConditionsRectal CancerArmsEndoscopic mucosal dissection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Maximilian EiseleMedicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Alessandra CeccacciMedicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0009-0007-7624-4297
Mehul GuptaMedicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Emily HeerMedicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Sherif ElhanafiDivision of Gastroenterology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, United States.
Saowanee NgamruengphongGastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States.
Nirav ThosaniGastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Houston, United States.
Jordan IannuzziMedicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Puja KumarMedicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Paul BelletruttiMedicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Richdeep GillSurgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Nauzer ForbesMedicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a potentially surgery-sparing technique for colorectal neoplasia resection. Outcomes of ESD for residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia are not well described. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ESD in treating residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia. Patients and methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase up to July 24, 2023 for studies on ESD for residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia at prior surgery or endoscopic resection sites. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was R0 resection; secondary outcomes included recurrence, adverse events (AEs), procedure time, and hospitalization length. Pooled effect sizes were obtained using inverse variance random effects models. Subgroup analyses were based on study location, lesion size, and endoscopist experience. Results: From 1,133 abstracts, data from 25 observational studies were included, reporting on 863 residual or recurrent lesions treated with ESD. R0 resection was achieved in 80.7% of patients (95% confidence interval 72.7-86.7%, I Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that ESD is effective and safe for treating residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia after previous resection, with further prospective validation studies needed to compare ESD with other endoscopic resection methods and surgery in this context.

Indexed as

CRC screeningEndoscopic resection (polypectomy, ESD, EMRc, ...)Endoscopy Lower GI TractPolyps / adenomas / ...

Identifiers

PMID40611847
PMCPMC12223960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.