SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Precut mucosectomy versus endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal lesions sized 10-30 mm: meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing detection and resection of colorectal polyps.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Emerging endoscopic resection strategies for organ preservation in early colorectal cancer.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly-stage colorectal lesions are traditionally managed with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C). Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), though technically demanding, enables en bloc resection with negative margins. Precut mucosectomy (EMR-P) was developed to enhance en bloc resection rates by minimizing the risk of snare slippage during procedures.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared EMR-P with EMR-C, ESD, and Hybrid ESD (ESD-H). Databases were queried for studies reporting en bloc resection rate and complete histological resection rate (R0), as well outcomes including procedure time, recurrence rate, and adverse events. Risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random or fixed-effects models based on heterogeneity.
resultsTwelve studies, including 2.575 lesions (921 EMR-P, 615 EMR-C, 955 ESD, 84 ESD-H), were analyzed. EMR-P outperformed EMR-C in en bloc resection rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.03-1.33; P = 0.01) and R0 resection rates (RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.15-1.57; P = 0.0002), particularly for flat lesions in the right colon. However, EMR-P was associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Compared to ESD, EMR-P demonstrated lower en bloc resection rate (RR 0.85; 95% CI; 0.75-0.97, P = 0.02) but showed no significant difference R0 resection rate (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.88-1.02, P = 0.15). In head-to-head comparisons between EMR-P and ESD-H, no significant differences were observed in en bloc or complete resection rates.
conclusionEMR-P emerges as a promising technique for resecting flat colorectal lesions > 10 mm, particularly those in the right colon, by reducing the risk of snare slippage. Future RCTs are essential to establish EMR-P's role in managing large colorectal neoplasms and optimizing recurrence prevention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40691336What 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.