Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21713594›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2011

Diagnostic evaluation, surgical technique, and perioperative management after esophagectomy: consensus statement of the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group.

Daniel Palmes, Matthias Brüwer, Franz G Bader, Michael Betzler, Heinz Becker, Hans-Peter Bruch, Markus Büchler, Heinz Buhr, Beta Michael Ghadimi, Ulrich T Hopt and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Role of endoscopy to predict a leak after esophagectomy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel PalmesDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University of Münster, Waldeyerstrasse 1, 48149 Münster, Germany. palmes@uni-muenster.de
Matthias Brüwer
Franz G Bader
Michael Betzler
Heinz Becker
Hans-Peter Bruch
Markus Büchler
Heinz Buhr
Beta Michael Ghadimi
Ulrich T Hopt
Ralf Konopke
Katja Ott
Stefan Post
Jörg-Peter Ritz
Ulrich Ronellenfitsch
Hans-Detlev Saeger
Norbert Senninger
German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity of Münster · DEUniversity Medical Center · USUniversity of Freiburg · DEAlfried Krupp Hospital · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCorrect diagnosis, surgical treatment, and perioperative management of patients with esophageal carcinoma remain crucial for prognosis within multimodal treatment procedures. This study aims to achieve a consensus regarding current management strategies in esophageal cancer by questioning a panel of experts from the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study (GAST) group, comprised of 9 centers specialized in esophageal surgery, with a combined total of >220 esophagectomies per year. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe Delphi method, a systematic and interactive, evidence-based approach, was used to obtain consensus statements from the GAST group regarding ambiguities and disparities in diagnosis, patient selection, surgical technique, and perioperative management of patients with esophageal carcinoma. After four rounds of surveys, agreement was measured by Likert scales and defined as full (100% agreement), near (≥66.6% agreement), or no consensus (<66.6% agreement).

resultsFull or near consensus was obtained for essential aspects of esophageal cancer staging, proper surgical technique, perioperative management and indication for primary surgery, and neoadjuvant treatment or palliative treatment. No consensus was achieved regarding acceptability of minimally invasive technique and postoperative nutrition after esophagectomy.

conclusionThe GAST consensus statement represents a position paper for treatment of patients with esophageal carcinoma which both contributes to the development of clinical treatment guidelines and outlines topics in need of further clinical studies.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyGermanyHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingPalliative CarePatient SelectionPerioperative PeriodPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID21713594
OpenAlexW2125078650

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.