ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Underwater hybrid ESD versus conventional ESD for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a retrospective study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) is standard for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) but is time-consuming. Underwater hybrid ESD (U-Hybrid ESD) is an emerging technique. We compared the efficacy and safety of U-Hybrid ESD versus C-ESD for colorectal LSTs. Methods: This exploratory, single-center retrospective study included 300 patients with LSTs ≥20 mm (U-Hybrid ESD, Results: After multivariable adjustment, U-Hybrid ESD had significantly shorter procedure time (adjusted mean 21.29 vs. 31.99 min, adjusted mean difference -10.70, Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, U-Hybrid ESD was associated with shorter procedure time and modest improvements in postoperative recovery metrics, without a significant increase in complications. These hypothesis-generating findings suggest that U-Hybrid ESD may offer efficiency benefits for selected lesions, but the potential trend toward lower R0 rates for large or high-grade lesions warrants caution and prospective validation before any definitive size-based recommendations can be made.
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.