ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2016
Addressing unwarranted variations in colorectal cancer outcomes: a conceptual approach.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revealing the gaps: unwarranted variations and multidisciplinary solutions in Victorian oesophagogastric cancer care - A mixed-methods analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Clinically Prioritized Colorectal Cancer Quality Indicators With a New South Wales Population-Based Linked Dataset.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- A Darwinian Perspective on Tumor Evolution.International journal of biological sciences · 2026Review
- Five principles to prioritise in small-scale surgical quality improvement: a qualitative study of the views of surgical improvement leaders.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Regional variation in access to and quality of acute stroke care: results of Germany's Health System Performance Assessment pilot, 2014-2020.Research in health services & regions · 2024Article
- Facilitating High Quality Cancer Care: A Qualitative Study of Australian Chairpersons' Perspectives on Multidisciplinary Team Meetings.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the clinical setting, the term 'unwarranted variation' refers to variations in patient outcomes that cannot be explained by the patient's underlying illness or medical needs, or the dictates of evidence-based medicine. These types of variations persist even after adjusting for patient-specific factors. Unwarranted variation depends on a complex mix of disparities, including inequalities in access to appropriate care in a wide variety of geographical and cultural settings, in the uptake and application of clinical knowledge, in the prioritization and allocation of resources, and differences in organizational and professional culture. Nevertheless, unwarranted variation has been inexorably linked with clinical practice. Thus, awareness of the antecedents of unwarranted variations in clinical practice is strategically important. In this Perspective, we discuss these antecedents in colorectal cancer clinical care pathways with an emphasis upon the multidisciplinary team (MDT), and suggest pragmatic steps that could be taken to address latent unwarranted variation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27349194What 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.