ReviewSurgical endoscopy2014
Location, size, and distance: criteria for quality in esophagogastroduodenos copy reporting for pre-operative gastric cancer evaluation.
Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Geographic variation in surgical practice patterns and outcomes for resected nonmetastatic gastric cancer in Ontario.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
- Quality of Endoscopy Reports for Esophageal Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a lack of existing literature regarding the quality of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reporting for gastric cancer evaluation. This study aims to determine criteria for quality endoscopic evaluation of gastric cancer in North America by identifying important features of the EGD report for pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer and assessing inclusion of these features in existing reports.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with experienced endoscopists from community and academic hospitals affiliated with the University of Toronto to identify essential elements for an EGD report. Then, 225 EGD reports from 2005 to 2008 were evaluated by two trained reviewers for inclusion of recommended EGD report elements and global assessment of report quality and adequacy for surgical planning.
resultsEssential elements recommended by interviewed endoscopists include tumor size, location, and distance from gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Approximately 95 % of all reports documented the location of lesions, <5 % documented distance from the GEJ, and <15 % documented tumor size. Overall report quality was rated as excellent for 4-5 % of reports; 20-42 % of all reports were deemed to be adequate for surgical planning. All surgeons interviewed as part of the endoscopist panel indicated that they would repeat the EGD before consulting with patients regarding surgical planning.
conclusionsFor pre-operative evaluation of gastric cancer, tumor size, location, and distance from key anatomical landmarks were proposed as essential elements of a quality EGD report. Most of the reviewed reports did not document these elements. Report quality is perceived to be poor and may lead to repeat endoscopy. Developing a standardized EGD reporting format based on inclusion of individual parameters can improve the quality of gastric cancer management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.