ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Optimal endoscopic resection method based on vertical margin distance for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Propensity score-matched study.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Advanced endoscopic resection methods are recommended for removing rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) < 10 mm, but there is no consensus on optimal endoscopic technique. This study aimed to determine whether endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMR-L) is superior to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in terms of efficacy and safety, focusing on achieving adequate vertical margin distance. Patients and methods: This dual-center cohort study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs ≤ 10 mm. Adequate vertical margins were exploratively defined as a margin distance exceeding 115 μm, the 25th percentile threshold. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between EMR-L and ESD. Results: The study included 204 rectal NETs from 186 patients, with 61 lesions in each group after PSM. Compared with ESD, the EMR-L group demonstrated a higher R0 resection rate (98.4% vs. 83.6%, Conclusions: EMR-L outperforms ESD for small rectal NETs by achieving higher R0 and better vertical margins in shorter times, while minimizing risk of perforation.
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.