ArticleBMC health services research2010
Is quality of colorectal cancer care good enough? Core measures development and its application for comparing hospitals in Taiwan.
Article in BMC health services research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals.BJS open · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Refining postoperative quality metrics: risk factors for emergency department visits within 3 days after hemorrhoidectomy.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- "Colorectal Cancer Care Quality in a Developing Country: Insights from a Comparison of Teaching and Non-teaching Hospitals in Iran".PloS one · 2025Article
- Bibliometric analysis of cancer care operations management: current status, developments, and future directions.Health care management science · 2022Review
- Latent composite indicators for evaluating adherence to guidelines in patients with a colorectal cancer diagnosis.Medicine · 2020Observational
- Benchmarking specialty hospitals, a scoping review on theory and practice.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Development and testing of indicators to measure coordination of clinical information and management across levels of care.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Can composite performance measures predict survival of patients with colorectal cancer?World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Observational
- Article
- Evaluation of lymph nodes in patients with colon cancer undergoing colon resection: a population-based study.World journal of surgery · 2012Article
- Risk groups defined by Recursive Partitioning Analysis of patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma treated with colorectal resection.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
- DNA methylation profiling across the spectrum of HPV-associated anal squamous neoplasia.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough performance measurement for assessing care quality is an emerging area, a system for measuring the quality of cancer care at the hospital level has not been well developed. The purpose of this study was to develop organization-based core measures for colorectal cancer patient care and apply these measures to compare hospital performance.
methodsThe development of core measures for colorectal cancer has undergone three stages including a modified Delphi method. The study sample originated from 2004 data in the Taiwan Cancer Database, a national cancer data registry. Eighteen hospitals and 5585 newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients were enrolled in this study. We used indicator-based and case-based approaches to examine adherences simultaneously.
resultsThe final core measure set included seventeen indicators (1 pre-treatment, 11 treatment-related and 5 monitoring-related). There were data available for ten indicators. Indicator-based adherence possesses more meaningful application than case-based adherence for hospital comparisons. Mean adherence was 85.8% (79.8% to 91%) for indicator-based and 82.8% (77.6% to 88.9%) for case-based approaches. Hospitals performed well (>90%) for five out of eleven indicators. Still, the performance across hospitals varied for many indicators. The best and poorest system performance was reflected in indicators T5-negative surgical margin (99.3%, 97.2%-100.0%) and T7-lymph nodes harvest more than twelve(62.7%, 27.6%-92.2%), both of which related to surgical specimens.
conclusionsIn this nationwide study, quality of colorectal cancer care still shows room for improvement. These preliminary results indicate that core measures for cancer can be developed systematically and applied for internal quality improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.