ReviewProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)
Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection in managing gastrointestinal tract tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). 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.
- Bridging the gap between evidence and practice.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are minimally invasive alternatives to surgery for gastrointestinal tumors, differing in technique, indications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of ESD vs EMR. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched. Binary outcomes were pooled as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. Analyses were performed in R (v4.4.1), with significance set at Results: Twenty-five studies with 5283 patients (2234 ESD, 3049 EMR) were included. ESD achieved higher complete resection (OR, 5.77; 95% CI, 2.18-15.26; Conclusions: ESD provides superior complete and en bloc resection compared with EMR but involves longer procedures and higher PECS risk. Large-scale trials are needed to refine comparative outcomes.
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.