Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21912876›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2012

An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer.

Fiona J Collinson, David G Jayne, Alessio Pigazzi, Charles Tsang, Jennifer M Barrie, Richard Edlin, Christopher Garbett, Pierre Guillou, Ivana Holloway, Helen Howard and 6 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

97 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 255 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Impact of New Surgical Techniques on Geographical Unwarranted Variation: The Case of Benign Hysterectomy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Fiona J CollinsonClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. f.j.collinson@leeds.ac.uk
David G Jayne
Alessio Pigazzi
Charles Tsang
Jennifer M Barrie
Richard Edlin
Christopher Garbett
Pierre Guillou
Ivana Holloway
Helen Howard
Helen Marshall
Christopher McCabe
Sue Pavitt
Phil Quirke
Carly S Rivers
Julia M B Brown
University of Leeds · GBSt James's University Hospital · GBCity Of Hope National Medical Center · USLeeds Beckett University · GBNational University Cancer Institute, Singapore · SGYorkshire Cancer Research · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_G1002457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is growing enthusiasm for robotic-assisted laparoscopic operations across many surgical specialities, including colorectal surgery, often not supported by robust clinical or cost-effectiveness data. A proper assessment of this new technology is required, prior to widespread recommendation or implementation. METHODS/

designThe ROLARR trial is a pan-world, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, superiority trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. It will investigate differences in terms of the rate of conversion to open operation, rate of pathological involvement of circumferential resection margin, 3-year local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival rates and also operative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome measure is the rate of conversion to open operation. For 80% power at the 5% (two-sided) significance level, to identify a relative 50% reduction in open conversion rate (25% to 12.5%), 336 patients will be required. The target recruitment is 400 patients overall to allow loss to follow-up. Patients will be followed up at 30 days and 6 months post-operatively and then annually until 3 years after the last patient has been randomised. DISCUSSION: In many centres, robotic-assisted surgery is being implemented on the basis of theoretical advantages, which have yet to be confirmed in practice. Robotic surgery is an expensive health care provision and merits robust evaluation. The ROLARR trial is a pragmatic trial aiming to provide a comprehensive evaluation of both robotic-assisted and standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative resection of rectal cancer.

Indexed as

International CooperationAdultHealth Care CostsHumansLaparoscopyProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRectal NeoplasmsRoboticsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21912876
OpenAlexW2081192614

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.