SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparison of the efficacy of different treatments after non-curative endoscopic resection of superficial esophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
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
Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of different treatments after non-curative endoscopic resection for superficial esophageal carcinoma. Methods: Databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data were searched from inception to November 25, 2025. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3, with Stata version 15 employed for supplementary statistical assessments. Results: A total of 13 studies involving 1,304 patients were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the recurrence rate after non-curative endoscopic resection of superficial esophageal carcinoma was significantly higher in the observation group than in the adjuvant treatment group (OR = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.88-5.62, Conclusion: Lymphovascular invasion is a risk factor for recurrence in patients. The adjuvant treatment group shows significantly reduced recurrence rates compared to the observation group, with no significant difference in recurrence rates between surgical and chemoradiotherapeutic approaches. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251108299.
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.