Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42634629›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Conventional Versus Traction-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Archit Garg, Muhammad T Bajwa, Aashi Garg, Aadhithyaraman Santharaman, Vishali Moond, Arkady Broder, Douglas G Adler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Archit GargInternal Medicine, Saint Peter's University Hospital/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, USA.
Muhammad T BajwaInternal Medicine, Saint Peter's University Hospital/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, USA.
Aashi GargMedicine, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Aadhithyaraman SantharamanGastroenterology, Saint Peter's University Hospital/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, USA.
Vishali MoondGastroenterology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, USA.
Arkady BroderGastroenterology and Hepatology, Saint Peter's University Hospital/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, USA.
Douglas G AdlerGastroenterology, Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, Centura Health, Porter Adventist Hospital, Denver, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used to treat esophageal cancer. Traction-assisted ESD (TA-ESD) has shown promising outcomes, potentially offering better clinical results than conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study compares the efficacy and safety of C-ESD versus TA-ESD in esophageal cancer treatment. We conducted a meta-analysis of six studies involving 694 patients comparing clinical outcomes between the two techniques. Mean dissection time was similar between TA-ESD and C-ESD (71.48 vs 72.02 minutes, p = 0.4). TA-ESD yielded a larger resected area (32.49 cm

Indexed as

advanced endoscopyconventional endoscopic submucosal dissectionendoscopic submucosal dissection (esd)esophageal cancer (ec)traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection

Identifiers

PMID42634629
PMCPMC13499892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.