Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21744098›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2011

Does a learning curve exist in endorectal two-dimensional ultrasound accuracy?

O J Morris, B Draganic, S Smith

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

O J MorrisHunter Colorectal Research, Private Medical Suites, 26 Lookout Road, New Lambton, NSW, 2305, Australia. owenjamesmorris@hotmail.com
B Draganic
S Smith
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAim of the study was to assess adequacy of Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ) endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) training and whether a subsequent learning curve exists.

methodsA prospective audit of ERUS for staging rectal cancer by a single surgeon from commencement of consultant practice was performed. Data were recorded in a prospectively maintained database. The audit commenced on completion of CSSANZ training. T- and N-stage were assessed clinically, then by ERUS prior to treatment and finally by histology over 8 years.

resultsThe results were compared over three time periods: the first a single year, then two three-year periods. Two hundred and seventy-two patients were examined. Two hundred and thirty-three were assessable for T-stage (13 no tumour excision, 26 long course pre-operative radiotherapy) and 142 for N-stage (74 endoanal excision, 17 proximal mesorectum un-assessable). Overall accuracy was 82% for T-stage and 73% for N-stage. Accuracy for T- and N-staging did not change significantly over the three time periods (T: 82.1, 82.3, 81.6%, P = 0.14; N: 83.3, 67.9, 74.2%, P = 0.31). The utility of ERUS was demonstrated by clinical assessment not being possible in 32% of cases and where the two modalities disagreed was correct 82% of the time.

conclusionsEndorectal ultrasound rectal cancer staging is accurate for T-stage. Competency in ERUS can be achieved in the CSSANZ fellowship and accuracy does not improve with further experience. An ERUS accreditation scheme should be established for future trainees.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEndosonographyLearning CurveAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaEducation, Medical, GraduateFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNew ZealandRectal NeoplasmsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID21744098
OpenAlexW2003425278

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.