SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2026
Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (> 20 mm): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) larger than 20 mm are significant precursors to colorectal cancer. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are widely used treatments, but their comparative efficacy and safety remain controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare ESD and EMR in terms of local recurrence, perforation, and delayed bleeding for colorectal LSTs > 20 mm.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to 1 May 2025. Studies comparing ESD and EMR for LSTs > 20 mm were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsEight studies comprising 3024 patients were included. ESD was associated with significantly lower local recurrence compared to EMR (0.62% versus 12.02%; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-0.13, p < 0.01). However, ESD had a higher risk of perforation (5.38% versus 1.53%; OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.89-5.29, p < 0.01). No significant difference was found in delayed bleeding rates (3.65% versus 3.75%; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.65-1.55, p = 0.98). Heterogeneity was negligible across all outcomes (I
conclusionsESD significantly reduces recurrence risk for colorectal LSTs > 20 mm compared with EMR but carries a higher perforation risk. Bleeding rates are comparable between the two techniques. ESD is recommended in expert centers where technical proficiency can mitigate perforation risk, while EMR-treated patients require closer surveillance due to higher recurrence. Future studies should focus on optimizing techniques and clarifying strategies for different LST subtypes and locations.
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.