SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
The clinical efficacy of pocket creation method ESD and conventional ESD in the treatment of early colorectal neoplasms: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Entering Into a New Era?Journal of digestive diseasesArticle
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
Background: This study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of the pocket creation method endoscopic submucosal dissection (PCM-ESD) compared with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) in the treatment of early colorectal neoplasms. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang databases for all case-control studies published from the inception of these databases to June 30, 2025, comparing PCM-ESD with C-ESD in the treatment of early colorectal neoplasms. Literature screening and data extraction were performed in accordance with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software to assess the efficacy and safety of both methods. Results: Nine studies, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 7 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 1,899 patients, were included. PCM-ESD achieved higher en bloc resection rates (RR = 1.05, 95%CI: 1.02 ~ 1.09, Conclusion: In the treatment of early colorectal neoplasms, PCM-ESD was associated with higher en bloc and R0 resection rates, shorter procedure time, faster dissection speed, and a lower perforation rate compared with C-ESD. In contrast, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two techniques with respect to non-curative resection rates, pathological outcomes, or bleeding-related events. While several efficacy and safety-related indicators favored PCM-ESD, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the predominance of retrospective data and the heterogeneity of study designs. Overall, PCM-ESD appears to be a promising alternative technique, particularly for technically challenging lesions. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, CRD420251147333.
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.