ArticleWorld journal of surgery2015
The impact of standard protocol implementation on the quality of colorectal cancer pathology reporting.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2016Pooled it
- Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into colorectal cancer reporting.The Journal of pathology · 2026Review
- Automated Generation of Synoptic Reports from Narrative Pathology Reports in University Malaya Medical Centre Using Natural Language Processing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Identification of barriers and facilitators in nationwide implementation of standardized structured reporting in pathology: a mixed method study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019Article
- Diverting ileostomy in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: high price of protection.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study is to assess the influence of standardized protocol implementation on the quality of colorectal cancer histopathology reporting.
methodsA standardized protocol was created based on the recommendations of The College of American Pathologists. The impact of this protocol was measured by comparing frequencies of assessed parameters in histopathology reports before and after implementation.
resultsIn total, 177 histopathology reports were included in this study. The numbers of harvested lymph nodes were 12.4 ± 5.2 (colon) and 12.6 ± 5.4 (rectum) before protocol; and 17.1 ± 6.5 (colon), and 16.6 ± 7.0 after protocol implementation; differences were statistically significant. The recommended minimum of 12 lymph nodes was not achieved in 42.8 % (colon) and 45.7 % (rectum) of specimens before, and in 10.4 % (colon) and 17.7 % (rectum) of specimens after protocol implementation; differences were statistically significant. There were no differences in histopathology assessment of proximal and distal resection margins, grading assessment, TNM staging recording, and number of positive findings of microscopic tumor aggressiveness. The findings of tumor budding, tumor satellites, and assessment of microscopic tumor aggressiveness were more frequent after protocol implementation. Histopathology reports of rectal specimens contained assessments of the macroscopic quality of mesorectum, circumferential resection margin, and neoadjuvant therapy effect (if administered) only after protocol introduction.
conclusionsA standardized protocol is a valuable and effective tool for improving the quality of histopathology reporting. Its implementation is associated with more precise specimen evaluation, higher numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and improved completeness of histopathology reports.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25234197What 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.