ArticleDEN open2026
Feasibility Study of Modified Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Polyps.
Article in DEN open, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is widely performed for colorectal tumors. However, in our experience, it is sometimes difficult to keep a clear endoscopic view underwater, due to dirty fluid inflow or insufficient water pooling after grasping the polyp, or bleeding just after endoscopic resection. To compensate for such challenges, we reported modified UEMR (M-UEMR) as a procedure for snaring underwater and undergas resection. Therefore, we conducted a prospective clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of M-UEMR. Methods: This single-center prospective study was conducted at Tokushima University Hospital. Patients with 10-25 mm colorectal polyps were enrolled. The polyps were snared underwater, then infused water was removed, and the lumen was inflated with CO Results: Forty patients were enrolled, and the R0 resection rate was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.4-90.9). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. En bloc resection was 92.5% (95% CI: 79.6-98.4). The median thickness of SM tissue (range) was 574 µm (241-2632) at the center of the specimen. Conclusion: M-UEMR demonstrated a high R0 resection rate with a safe profile. M-UEMR is expected to be utilized as an alternative technique to UEMR for colorectal polyps in patients with difficulty maintaining a clear visual field.
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.