Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis

doi:10.12998/wjcc.v8.i20.4826

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 8, Issue 20

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (6378)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-8) series, Tables (1-1) series.

Item

Count

PDF

316

WORD

140

HTML

3130

Figures (1-8)

242

Tables (1-1)

224

Sum=4052

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

621

Download

1705

Sum=2326

Oct 26, 2020 (publication date) through Dec 2, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (12)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Clinical Cases

ISSN

2307-8960

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Meta-Analysis

World J Clin Cases. Oct 26, 2020; 8(20): 4826-4837
Published online Oct 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i20.4826

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 1 Retrieval flowchart of the articles.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 2 Meta-analysis of the en bloc resections rate between underwater endoscopic mucosal resection group and endoscopic mucosal resection group. UEMR: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 3 Sub-group analysis of the en bloc resections rate between underwater endoscopic mucosal resection group and endoscopic mucosal resection group. UEMR: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 4 Meta-analysis of the incidence of adverse events between underwater endoscopic mucosal resection group and endoscopic mucosal resection group. UEMR: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 5 Meta-analysis of the postoperative recurrence rate at 3-6 mo between underwater endoscopic mucosal resection group and endoscopic mucosal resection group. UEMR: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 6 Meta-analysis of the postoperative recurrence rate at 12 mo between underwater endoscopic mucosal resection group and endoscopic mucosal resection group. UEMR: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 7 Funnel plot for en bloc resections rate.

Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 8 Funnel plot for incidence of adverse events.

Citation: Ni DQ, Lu YP, Liu XQ, Gao LY, Huang X. Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(20): 4826-4837
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v8/i20/4826.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i20.4826