Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27699516›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2017

Preoperative localization of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sergio A Acuna, Maryam Elmi, Prakesh S Shah, Natalie G Coburn, Fayez A Quereshy

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sergio A AcunaInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Maryam ElmiInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Prakesh S ShahInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Natalie G CoburnInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Fayez A QuereshyDepartment of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Fayez.Quereshy@uhn.ca.
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreoperative colorectal tumor localization is crucial for appropriate resection and treatment planning. As the localization accuracy of conventional colonoscopy is considered to be low, several localization techniques have been developed. We systematically reviewed the tumor localization error rates of several preoperative endoscopic techniques and synthesized information on risk factors for localization errors and procedure-related adverse events.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they reported tumor localization errors in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing resection with curative intent. Using random-effects models, pooled incidence of tumor localization errors were derived for conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopic tattooing. Due to the lack of comparative studies, a direct comparison of the pooled estimates was performed. Procedure-related adverse events, risk factors for localization errors, and the localization outcomes of other techniques such as colonoscopic clip placement, radioguided occult colonic lesion identification, and the use of magnetic endoscope imaging were also synthesized.

resultsA total of 38 non-randomized controlled and observational studies were included in this review (2578 patients underwent conventional colonoscopy and 643 colonoscopic tattooing). The pooled incidence of localization errors with conventional colonoscopy was 15.4 % (95 % CI 12.0-18.7), whereas that of colonoscopic tattooing was 9.5 % (95 % CI 5.7-13.3), mean difference 5.9 % (95 % CI 0.65-11.14, p = 0.03). Adverse events secondary to tattooing were infrequent, and most were cases of ink spillage. Limited information was available for other localization techniques.

conclusionConventional colonoscopy has a higher incidence of localization error compared to colonoscopic tattooing for localization of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopic tattooing is safe and leads to fewer tumor localization errors. Given the widespread adoption of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer, routine colonoscopic tattooing should be adopted. However, studies directly comparing different localization techniques are needed.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansModels, StatisticalPreoperative CareTattooingColonoscopyColorectal neoplasmsColorectal surgeryLaparoscopyPreoperative procedures

Identifiers

PMID27699516
OpenAlexW2529398787

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.