SynthesisJournal of gastroenterology2026
Evaluation of endoscopic submucosal dissection as a treatment option for duodenal tumors ≥ 20 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis by lesion size.
Synthesis in Journal of gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in treating superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the role of ESD for SNADETs by lesion size. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare outcomes between ESD and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). For duplicate publications, the study with the largest sample was included. Key outcomes included rates of en bloc resection, intraoperative perforation, and delayed adverse events (AEs) (bleeding, perforation). Data were analyzed according to lesion size categories (< 20 mm and ≥ 20 mm). Corresponding authors were contacted for data clarification when necessary. Fifteen retrospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria. For lesions < 20 mm, there was no significant difference in the en bloc resection rates between both groups (OR: 1.12 [95% CI 0.50-2.51]); however, the intraoperative perforation (OR: 9.74 [95% CI 5.07-18.69]) and delayed AEs rates (OR: 4.21 [95% CI 2.54-6.98]) were significantly higher for the ESD group. For lesions ≥ 20 mm, ESD was associated with a significantly higher en bloc resection rate (OR: 6.17 [95% CI 3.52-10.80]) and intraoperative perforation rate (OR: 5.33 [95% CI 2.23-12.76]), whereas the rate of delayed AEs was not significantly different from that of EMR (OR: 1.34 [95% CI 0.58-3.11]). For SNADETs ≥ 20 mm, ESD demonstrates a higher en bloc resection rate while maintaining a comparable rate of delayed AEs compared to EMR. These findings suggest that ESD may be considered a potential treatment option for large SNADETs, with careful patient selection and risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41407989What 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.