A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparative efficacy of different techniques for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced technique that can provide successful 'en-bloc' and R0 resection rate for large gastrointestinal lesions. To date, several ESD techniques have been proposed, but their comparative efficacy is still unclear.

Methods: Major databases were systematically searched for RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of different ESD techniques for the resection of colonic lesions. The primary outcomes were 'en-bloc' and R0 resection rates. The secondary outcome was the incidence of procedure-related AEs.

Results: After selection of studies, 9 RCTs were included in the systematic review. On network meta-analysis for 'en-bloc' resection, pocked with traction ESD (PT-ESD) (RR=1.02; 95%CI=0.96-1.07) and pocket ESD (P-ESD) (RR=1.02; 95%CI=0.98-1.05) showed higher efficacy, whereas hybrid ESD (H-ESD) (RR=0.94; 95%CI=0.87-1.02) lower efficacy compared to conventional ESD (C-ESD). With regard to R0 resection, PT-ESD (RR=1.05; 95%CI=0.96-1.16) showed higher efficacy, and H-ESD (RR=0.97; 95%CI=0.84-1.13) lower efficacy compared to C-ESD. Concerning safety PT-ESD (RR=0.35; 95%CI=0.05-2.48) was associated with lower incidence of AEs, and H-ESD (RR=1.22; 95%CI=0.30-5.01) with higher incidence of AEs, compared to C-ESD.

Conclusions: The results of this network meta-analysis show a trend towards greater effectiveness and safety of PT-ESD for the removal of colonic lesions. H-ESD was associated with worse results and should be reserved as a rescue treatment, preferring other techniques.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2025.01.177DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

network meta-analysis
12
'en-bloc' resection
12
comparative efficacy
8
endoscopic submucosal
8
submucosal dissection
8
esd techniques
8
colonic lesions
8
higher efficacy
8
lower efficacy
8
efficacy compared
8

Similar Publications