ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Efficacy and safety of pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for treating rectal neuroendocrine tumors.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Efficacy and future directions.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (c-ESD) is a widely used technique for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), but it poses certain challenges. To address these, we developed a pretraction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (p-ESD) technique.
aimTo compare the efficacy and safety of p-ESD and c-ESD for rectal NETs.
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs measuring less than 15 mm who underwent either pESD or cESD at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital between January 2019 and December 2023. The study aimed to evaluate differences in dissection time,
resultsIn total, 103 patients were enrolled (49 in the p-ESD group and 54 in the c-ESD group). The p-ESD group exhibited a significantly shorter median dissection time (9.3 minutes
conclusionp-ESD is safe and effective for treating rectal NETs. Compared with c-ESD, it is technically easier, requires less dissection time, achieves higher R0 resection rates, reduces intraoperative bleeding, and lowers the risk of muscularis propria injury.
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.