Table 1.

characteristics of included studies

Author, year of publication	Country	Patients (n) (T-ESD vs C-ESD)	Age (years) (T-ESD vs C-ESD)	Location of lesions	Inclusion criteria for lesions size (mm) (T-ESD vs C-ESD)	Methods of traction
Ahn et al. [18] 2013	Korea	26:25	66.5 ± 8.8 vs 62.9 ± 8.7	Gastric neoplasm	20.5 ± 7.9 vs 19.4 ± 6.5	Transnasal endoscope
Ritsuno et al. [21] 2014	Japan	27:23	66.2 ± 9.6 vs 66.4 ± 8.9	Colorectal tumors	33.5 ± 12.5 vs 37.8 ± 13.1	S–O clip
Koike et al. [19] 2015	Japan	20:20	71 ± 6.3 vs 69.5 ± 9.5	Esophageal carcinoma	24(11–92) vs 27(8–48)	Clip with thread
Mori et al. [20] 2017	Japan	21:22	74 ± 10 vs 72 ± 12	Colorectal tumors	NA	Ring-shaped thread
Yamasaki et al. [22] 2018	Japan	42:42	65(41–84) vs 67(43–86)	Colorectal neoplasm	30(20–55) vs 30(20–60)	Clip-and-thread
Yoshida et al. [23] 2018	Japan	319:316	70.2 ± 9.4 vs 71 ± 8.4	Gastric neoplasms	15.7 ± 10.1 vs 15.5 ± 8.9	Dental floss clip
Ban et al. [24] 2018	Japan	49:55	71.2 ± 6.5 vs 69.0 ± 9.5	Gastric cancers or gastric adenomas	NA	Clip-flap

T-ESD traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection; C-ESD conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection; NA not available

Age and size of lesions was expressed with (mean ± SD) or median (range)