Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20696797›Full record

Trial reportCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2010

The cluster-randomized Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer trial: evaluating a quality-improvement strategy in surgery.

Marko Simunovic, Angela Coates, Charles H Goldsmith, Lehana Thabane, Dana Reeson, Andrew Smith, Robin S McLeod, Franco DeNardi, Timothy J Whelan, Mark N Levine

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Marko SimunovicDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. marko.simunovic@jcc.hhsc.ca
Angela Coates
Charles H Goldsmith
Lehana Thabane
Dana Reeson
Andrew Smith
Robin S McLeod
Franco DeNardi
Timothy J Whelan
Mark N Levine
McMaster University · CAHamilton General Hospital · CAJuravinski Hospital · CAHealth Sciences Centre · CAJuravinski Cancer Centre · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research MCT-50013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing surgery for rectal cancer, two unfortunate outcomes for patients are permanent colostomy and local recurrence of cancer. We tested whether a quality-improvement strategy to change surgical practice would improve these outcomes.

methodsSixteen hospitals were cluster-randomized to the intervention (Quality Initiative in Rectal Cancer strategy) or control (normal practice) arm. Consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer were accrued from May 2002 to December 2004. Surgeons at hospitals in the intervention arm could voluntarily participate by attending workshops, using opinion leaders, inviting a study team surgeon to demonstrate optimal techniques of total mesorectal excision, completing postoperative questionnaires, and receiving audits and feedback. Main outcome measures were hospital rates of permanent colostomy and local recurrence of cancer.

resultsA total of 56 surgeons (n = 558 patients) participated in the intervention arm and 49 surgeons (n = 457 patients) in the control arm. The median follow-up of patients was 3.6 years. In the intervention arm, 70% of surgeons participated in workshops, 70% in intraoperative demonstrations and 71% in postoperative questionnaires. Surgeons who had an intraoperative demonstration provided care to 86% of the patients in the intervention arm. The rates of permanent colostomy were 39% in the intervention arm and 41% in the control arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.48). The rates of local recurrence were 7% in the intervention arm and 6% in the control arm (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68-1.64).

interpretationDespite good participation by surgeons, the resource-intense quality-improvement strategy did not reduce hospital rates of permanent colostomy or local recurrence compared with usual practice.

Indexed as

AgedColorectal SurgeryColostomyConfidence IntervalsEducationFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioOntarioOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of Health CareRectal NeoplasmsRectum

Identifiers

PMID20696797
PMCPMC2934795
OpenAlexW2150887338

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.