Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41514031›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2026

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for the treatment of rectal tumors extending to the dentate line: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cong Ding, Jianfeng Yang, Jing Yang, Yifeng Zhou, Hui Wang, Shouyuan Xu, Hongzhang Shen, Qiang Liu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Cong DingDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, No. 261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Jianfeng YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, No. 261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Jing YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, No. 261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Yifeng ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, No. 261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Hui WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, No. 261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Shouyuan XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, No. 261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Hongzhang ShenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, No. 261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Qiang LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Westlake University, No. 261 Huansha Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. lisdmed@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with those of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for rectal tumors extending to the dentate line (RTDLs).

methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases up to July 2025 for studies that reported the clinical outcomes of EMR or ESD for RTDLs.

resultsFifteen studies (237 for EMR and 564 for ESD) were included in this meta-analysis. The en bloc resection rate (0.961 vs. 0.097; p = 0.000) was significantly greater in the ESD group than in the EMR group, and the local recurrence rate (0.023 vs. 0.188; p = 0.000) was significantly lower in the ESD group. No significant differences in the complete resection rate (0.793 vs. 0.823, p = 0.869) were noted between the ESD and EMR groups. In terms of adverse events, there were no differences in the postoperative bleeding rate (0.067 vs. 0.082; p = 0.677), perforation rate (0 vs.0; p = 0.605) or stricture rate (0.022 vs. 0.042; p = 0.378) between the ESD and EMR groups.

conclusionESD and EMR are effective and safe treatments for RTDLs; however, compared with EMR, ESD is associated with a higher en bloc resection rate and a lower local recurrence rate.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionRectal NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPublication BiasTreatment OutcomeDentate lineEndoscopic mucosal resectionEndoscopic submucosal dissectionRectal tumor

Identifiers

PMID41514031
PMCPMC12789226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.