Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11934773›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2002

Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Andrew G Renehan, Matthias Egger, Mark P Saunders, Sarah T O'Dwyer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 204 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
204citing papers in PubMed, 21 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

204 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Circulating tumor DNA as a predictive biomarker for colorectal cancer postsurgical recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Evaluation of post-operative surveillance strategies for esophageal and gastric cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Guideline
  14. Pooled it
  15. Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2013
    Pooled it
  16. Guideline
  17. Pooled it
  18. Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009
    Pooled it
  19. Guideline
  20. Pooled it

144 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrew G RenehanDepartment of Surgery, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester M20 4BX. arenehan@picr.man.ac.uk
Matthias Egger
Mark P Saunders
Sarah T O'Dwyer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review the evidence from clinical trials of follow up of patients after curative resection for colorectal cancer.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of intensive compared with control follow up.

main outcome measuresAll cause mortality at five years (primary outcome). Rates of recurrence of intraluminal, local, and metastatic disease and metachronous (second colorectal primary) cancers (secondary outcomes).

resultsFive trials, which included 1342 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Intensive follow up was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality (combined risk ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.94, P=0.007). The effect was most pronounced in the four extramural detection trials that used computed tomography and frequent measurements of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (risk ratio 0.73, 0.60 to 0.89, P=0.002). Intensive follow up was associated with significantly earlier detection of all recurrences (difference in means 8.5 months, 7.6 to 9.4 months, P<0.001) and an increased detection rate for isolated local recurrences (risk ratio 1.61, 1.12 to 2.32, P=0.011).

conclusionsIntensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer improves survival. Large trials are required to identify which components of intensive follow up are most beneficial.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsHumansLong-Term CareNeoplasm MetastasisPostoperative PeriodRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID11934773
PMCPMC100789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.