ArticleInternational wound journal2024
RETRACTED: Effect of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection on postoperative wound bleeding-related complications in patients with superficial esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Operative therapy for superficial esophagus carcinoma is the main way to treat the disease. Endoscopic excision of lesions in the esophagus has become an alternative to surgical treatment for patients with esophageal carcinoma. To overcome the disadvantages of endoscope mucosa excision (EMR), an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique has been developed. Although ESD is one of the most effective methods of endoscopy in patients with digestive tract tumors, there are potential complications after surgery, including hemorrhage in the surgical area and stenosis of the esophagus. The objective of this study was to evaluate EMR versus ESD based on post-operative hemorrhage and esophagus stenosis. All the related articles were retrieved from the e-databases. The main results were postoperative perforation, hemorrhage, and stenosis after surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of post-operative wound hemorrhage (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.36-3.29 p = 0.89). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in the rate of perforation after surgery (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.17-1.95 p = 0.37). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of esophageal stricture after surgery (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.26-5.15 p = 0.85). This analysis was different from the earlier meta-analysis because ESD and EMR did not show any notable differences with respect to the incidence of perforation after surgery, the hemorrhage of the wound or the stenosis of the esophagus. These findings must, however, be supported by more high-quality studies.
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.