ReviewIntestinal research2026
Comparison between endoscopic resection and transanal surgery for treatment of rectal tumors: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Review in Intestinal research, 2026. 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.
- Beyond technique: toward strategy-based endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsBoth endoscopic resection (ER) and transanal surgery (TAS) are minimally invasive treatment options that allow organ preservation in early rectal tumors. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare treatment outcomes between the 2 treatments.
methodsWe searched all relevant studies published until January 2024 that examined the comparative outcomes between ER and TAS for rectal tumors, including adenoma, adenocarcinoma, and neuroendocrine tumor (NET). TAS included transanal excision, transanal endoscopic microsurgery, and transanal minimally invasive surgery.
resultsSeventeen studies with a total of 1,569 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For adenoma/adenocarcinoma, the R0 resection rate did not differ between ER and TAS (risk ratio [RR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.03). For NET, the R0 resection rate was lower in the ER group than in the TAS group (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84) and the procedure time for ER was shorter than that for TAS. For both adenoma/adenocarcinoma and NET, ER and TAS did not differ in terms of complication rates, additional surgery, and recurrence.
conclusionsER and TAS showed similar treatment outcomes for adenoma/adenocarcinoma. Considering that TAS typically incurs higher costs than ER, ER may be favored in the treatment of rectal adenoma/adenocarcinoma. For rectal NET, TAS showed a superior R0 resection rate than ER. However, given that TAS requires a long procedure time, expensive equipment, and complex manipulations, TAS may be considered selectively for large NETs with suspected deep tumorous infiltration.
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.