Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27928687›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2017

Histopathological and radiological reporting in rectal cancer: concepts and controversies, facts and fantasies.

S Balyasnikova, N Haboubi, B Moran, G Brown

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Staging of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Beyond TME.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2020
    Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

S BalyasnikovaDepartment of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.
N HaboubiDepartment of Histopathology, Spire Hospital Healthcare Trust, Russell Road, Whalley Range, Manchester, M16 8AJ, UK. najibhaboubi@hotmail.com.
B MoranDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, North Hampshire Hospital, Basingstoke, UK.
G BrownDepartment of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.
Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital · GBImperial College London · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBSpire Manchester Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In rectal cancer patients, the stage of the disease, local spread and distant metastases status drive the treatment decisions to be made. Histopathology remains the gold standard, but preoperative staging, particularly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is pivotal for defining surgical planes and finding patients who could potentially benefit from preoperative regimes. Unfortunately, due to a lack of awareness, expertise and practise the quality of rectal cancer MRI and histopathology reporting varies among centres. This paper highlights the most important and frequently occurring radiological and histopathological discrepancies/mistakes to be aware of.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantHumansIntestinal PolypsLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingPatient Care PlanningPreoperative PeriodRectal NeoplasmsResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsVeinsHistopathological reportingMRI stagingRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID27928687
OpenAlexW2560216877

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.