ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2010
[Quality criteria for treatment of colorectal cancer. From a surgeon's viewpoint].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-centered developments in colon- and rectal cancer with a multidisciplinary international team: From translational research to national guidelines.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- Effects of multidisciplinary team on emergency care for colorectal cancer patients: A nationwide-matched cohort study.Medicine · 2017Observational
- Minimum Volume Discussion in the Treatment of Colon and Rectal Cancer: A Review of the Current Status and Relevance of Surgeon and Hospital Volume regarding Result Quality and the Impact on Health Economics.Visceral medicine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The surgeon is the key "prognosis factor" for colorectal cancer. For this reason quality criteria were recently established (including minimum numbers) in order to treat patients who are entitled to the best quality of care and to improve the prognosis. The aim of this study was to critically discuss the existing demands on the surgeon based on the current literature and our own results and to formulate evidence-based quality criteria for surgical clinics. After reviewing the current literature criteria were compiled, discussed and finally presented in a summarized form. These are based on current developments on the diagnostic and therapy of large intestine and colorectal carcinoma. New developments of the German Cancer Society for planning of organ centers are incorporated. The quintessence of our study is that the number of cases alone is not decisive for the success of therapy. Important are the application of the correct surgical-oncology operation procedure, adherence to standards and the training of surgeons. Following the S3 guidelines stage-oriented therapy should additionally be carried out in a structured sequence. This includes an interdisciplinary decision making on the diagnostic and therapy strategy (tumor board). The organization structure of the hospital (teams, tumor board, emergency care with intensive care unit, emergency diagnostic and options for interventional measures) can be more important than the hospital case numbers alone. These demands which have been evaluated from published data and own results are designed to raise the therapy of colorectal cancer to the best possible level of quality and to effect a further improvement in the prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19760377What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.