ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Analysis of the efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) is relatively common together with pancreatic NET in the context of a rare disease. Endoscopic resection is a commonly used treatment method. The aim of this prospective study is to analyze the safety and efficacy of endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) in the treatment of rectal NET. Patients and methods: Patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly assigned to the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) group and the EFTR group. Compare whether there are statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications, hospital stay, and the rate of positive surgical margins. Results: This study included 58 patients, 43 patients were in the ESD group and 15 patients were in the EFTR group. There were no significant statistical differences between the two groups in terms of gender ( Conclusion: Endoscopic full-thickness resection combined with endoscopic purse-string suture is a safe method for treating rectal NETs, and it has a higher complete resection rate compared to ESD.
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.