Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40932821›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2025

Comparison of three electrosurgical modes for endoscopic mucosal resection of 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: Randomized controlled trial.

Su Luo, Feng Xiong, Sheng-Gang Zhan, Zhenglei Xu, Ding-Guo Zhang, Ting-Ting Liu, Ying-Xue Li, Cheng Wei, Ben-Hua Wu, Yi-Teng Meng and 4 more

Abstract 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. 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.

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

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

14 authors.

Su LuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Feng XiongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Sheng-Gang ZhanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Zhenglei XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Ding-Guo ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Ting-Ting LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Ying-Xue LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Cheng WeiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Ben-Hua WuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Yi-Teng MengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Rui-Yue ShiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Jun YaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Li-Sheng WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
De-Feng LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and study aims: Endocut Q (effect 2, effect 3 and effect 4) commonly is used for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) when removing colorectal polyps. However, there is debate over the type of electrosurgical setting of Endocut Q being recommended in clinical practice. We performed a randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness and safety of three effects with EMR for removal of non-pedunculated 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps. Patients and methods: Patients with non-pedunculate colorectal polyps undergoing EMR were randomly allocated into effect 2, effect 3, and effect 4 groups. The primary outcome was rates of intra-procedural bleeding. Secondary outcomes were rates of post-procedural bleeding, perforation, complete resection, en bloc resection, R0 resection, and residual polyps. Results: A total of 2637 eligible patients were included in the study and randomly assigned into the effect 2, effect 3, or effect 4 group. There were no significant differences among the three groups in baseline characteristics ( Conclusions: Endocut Q (effect 2, effect 3 and effect 4) was effective and safe for removing 10- to 20-mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. However, effect 2 may be superior to effect 3 and effect 4 in reducing intra-procedural bleeding.

Indexed as

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

Identifiers

PMID40932821
PMCPMC12418810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.