Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection with Rubber Bands and Clips Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising number of gastrointestinal (GI) tumors, including esophageal, gastric, and colorectal tumors, makes it essential to develop more effective treatment methods. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a popular intervention due to its ability to resect the tumor completely and prevent local recurrence. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of ESD with rubber bands and clips (ESD-RBC) in the treatment of various GI tumors. We systematically searched Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane databases until April 20, 2024. Eligible studies included clinical trials and observational studies focusing on ESD-RBC alone or compared to conventional ESD (C-ESD) in patients with gastrointestinal tumors. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan and R software. ESD-RBC was superior to C-ESD in achieving R0 resection and en bloc resection (OR: 1.99 with 95% CI [1.17 to 3.36], P = 0.01, I 2 = 0%) and (OR: 5.98 with 95% CI [2.30 to 15.55]; P = 0.0002, I 2 = 0%), respectively. ESD-RBC enhanced the resection speed compared to C-ESD (MD: 8.48 mm 2 /min with 95% CI [3.12 to 13.83]; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 89%) and shortened the procedure duration (MD: − 11.94 min with 95% CI [− 21.98 to − 1.91]; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 7%). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of bleeding and delayed bleeding (OR: 1.08 with 95% CI [0.37 to 3.14]; P = 0.89, I 2 = 0%) and (OR: 0.69 with 95% CI [0.20 to 2.33]; P = 0.55, I 2 = 0%), respectively. The proportion of R0 resection using ESD-RBC was 90%, with 95% CI [65% to 98%] and I 2 = 78%. The en bloc resection rate was 96%, with 95% CI [95% to 97%], and I 2 = 0%. In addition, the raw mean (MRAW) of resection speed was 24.25 mm2/min, with 95% CI [13.48 to 35.02], and I 2 = 99.4%. ESD-RBC was superior to C-ESD in achieving en bloc resection and R0 resection with a comparable risk of bleeding and delayed bleeding. In addition, ESD-RBC enhanced the resection speed and shortened the procedure duration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".