ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2010
Practicability of quality goals for the treatment of rectal cancer.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Optimization of rectal cancer surgery outcomes in the United States: the influence of hospital volume on rates of sphincter preservation before and after practice standardization.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
- Shared Decision-Making, Sphincter Preservation, and Rectal Cancer Treatment: Identifying and Executing What Matters Most to Patients.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2024Review
- Association of certification, improved quality and better oncological outcomes for rectal cancer in a specialized colorectal unit.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Observational
- Multi-institutional assessment of sphincter preservation for rectal cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2014Article
- Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference.International journal of colorectal disease · 2014Article
- Does geography influence the treatment and outcomes of colorectal cancer? A population-based analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn 2007, the German Working Group "Workflow Rectal Cancer II" published 19 quality indicators with 36 quality goals for the treatment of rectal cancer. We investigate whether these parameters are practicable in a specialized coloproctologic unit. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe included 578 consecutive patients with rectal cancer who were treated in our institution from January 2000 to December 2008. Patient data were collected in a prospective database. Follow-up was conducted in a colorectal tumor clinic. Data were analyzed for the defined reference groups, and the results were compared with the quality goals.
resultsMedian follow-up was 54.4 (range 1-116) months. We achieved 19 of the 36 defined quality goals. Among these were important parameters such as the rate of postoperative mortality (0.9%), the rate of intraoperative local tumor perforation (2.2% for anterior resection and 8.5% for abdominoperineal excision), the 5-year local recurrence rate (5.9% stages I-III), and the 5-year overall survival rates for stages yII and II (79.9%), and stages yIII and III (60.7%) for patients with microscopically negative resection margins.
conclusionMost of the defined quality goals can be achieved in a specialized coloproctologic unit. The debate on quality goals has the potential to enable further improvement in the care of rectal cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20549219What 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.