ReviewInnere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Technical advances in endoscopic resection : Potential, limits and the necessary interdisciplinary dialogue with surgery].
Review in Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over recent years, endoscopic resection techniques, particularly within the field of interventional endoscopy, have advanced substantially, leading to a marked shift in the boundaries of minimally invasive therapy away from procedures that were previously managed primarily by surgery. These are accompanied by a significant expansion of the possibilities for minimally invasive interventions, an improvement of the resection results, optimization of the endoscopic access routes and instrument guidance as well as shortening of the learning curve by standardized techniques and assistance systems. Clinically relevant, in particular, are organ-preserving treatment options with oncological safety, which contribute to a reduction in morbidity and mortality, a reduction in the duration of hospitalization and a faster postinterventional convalescence. With careful patient selection these procedures can additionally improve the quality of life and potentially increase the cost-effectiveness in the healthcare system. At the same time there are still important challenges. The sometimes steep learning curve for complex endoscopic resection techniques, the management of procedure-related complications, such as perforations or hemorrhages and the confirmation of oncologically adequate resection margins necessitate profound expertise, structured training programs and a close interdisciplinary cooperation with surgery. This underlines the necessity of a continuous interdisciplinary dialogue. The implementation of interdisciplinary boards, joint training curricula and clearly defined competence profiles represents a central component a high-quality patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41417115What 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.