Table 2.
Meta-regression analysis of the methods of endoscopic resection according to the published studies (the random effects model was used)
| EMR vs ESD | Coefficient | 95%CI | P value | Favors |
| Patients submitted to surgery | 0.401 | -2.912964, 3.714436 | 0.806 | None |
| Positive margin | -0.741 | -3.362995, 1.881024 | 0.558 | None |
| Local recurrence | -1.713 | -4.420582, 0.9937198 | 0.201 | None |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.905 | -5.762587, 7.573427 | 0.762 | None |
| Metachronous cancer | -1.804 | -4.350273, 0.7420371 | 0.143 | None |
| Procedural complications | 1.397 | -1.264597, 4.058631 | 0.289 | None |
| Stenosis | 7.322 | 3.810146, 10.83439 | < 0.001 | EMR |
| Piecemeal resection1 | ||||
| Number of cases | -7.709 | -11.03803, -4.380844 | < 0.001 | ESD |
| Local recurrence | -4.034 | -6.151498, -1.915559 | < 0.01 | ESD |
| Resection margins | 0.837 | -3.725993, 5.39999 | 0.678 | None |
1
Data available only for squamous cell carcinoma studies. EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.