Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Meta-Anal. Apr 26, 2016; 4(2): 44-54
Published online Apr 26, 2016. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v4.i2.44
Figure 1
Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure
Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram demonstrating search strategy.
Figure 2
Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure
Figure 2 Risk of bias graph (A) and risk of bias summary (judgments of each risk criteria presented as percentages across all included studies) and quality score results (B).
Figure 3
Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure
Figure 3 Colorectal lesion histopathology. LGD: Low grade dysplasia; HGD: High grade dysplasia; SM1: Submucosal tumour < 1000 μm invasion depth; SM2: Submucosal tumour > 1000 µm invasion depth.
Figure 4
Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure
Figure 4 En-bloc resection proportion difference endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection. EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Figure 5
Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure
Figure 5 Piecemeal resection proportion difference endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection. EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Figure 6
Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure
Figure 6 Endoscopic completeness rates proportion difference endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection. EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Figure 7
Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure
Figure 7 Perforation proportion difference endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection. EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Figure 8
Open in New Tab Full Size Figure Download Figure
Figure 8 Recurrence proportion difference endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection. EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.