SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
Comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection combined with band ligation versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (≤ 10 mm): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMR-L) vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rNETs) ≤ 10 mm.
methodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched from establishment to October 30, 2025, to collect studies comparing EMR-L and ESD for rNETs. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed quality; meta-analysis was performed via RevMan 5.4 and R software.
resultsEighteen studies involving 1,185 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the EMR-L group had significantly shorter operative time (MD = -18.67; 95% CI: -25.06 to -12.28, p < 0.001) compared to the ESD group. No significant intergroup differences were noted in R0 resection (RR = 1, 95%CI:0.95–1.06, p = 0.88), en bloc resection (RR = 1.00, 95%CI:0.99–1.02, p = 0.89), horizontal/vertical margin positivity (p = 0.33/p = 0.89), postoperative bleeding (p = 0.69) or perforation (p = 0.62). Notably, EMR-L group was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays (MD = -2.41; 95% CI: -3.7 to -1.06, p < 0.001) and lower hospitalization costs (MD = -3212.1; 95% CI: -5625.9 to -798.3, p = 0.009) compared to ESD group.
conclusionIn summary, for rNETs ≤ 10 mm, EMR-L seems to have comparable efficacy and safety compared to ESD, and it also appears to have advantages such as shorter operation time, shorter hospital stays, and lower cost, although there is some heterogeneity.
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.