ArticleAnnals of surgery2018
Development of a Core Outcome Set for Clinical Effectiveness Trials in Esophageal Cancer Resection Surgery.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 7 of them syntheses 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Development of a core descriptor set for studies assessing interventions for diabetes-related foot ulceration.Diabetologia · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Mapping Review of Core Outcome Reporting in Surgical Research for Oesophageal Cancer.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Medical students' evaluation of digital problem-based learning: a mixed-methods systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life in esophageal cancer: a state-of-the-art review of patient-reported outcomes and an evidence and gap map.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025Pooled it
- Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies Assessing Interventions for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration.Diabetes care · 2024Pooled it
- Identifying outcomes reported in exercise interventions in oesophagogastric cancer survivors: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy for severe obesity: The By-Band-Sleeve randomised controlled trial.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- Laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery with thoracotomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: ROMIO randomized clinical trial.The British journal of surgery · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Single-port robotic colorectal surgery: a scoping review of outcome reporting and future directions for standardisation.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- DELTO Study: Delphi Consensus on Long-Term Textbook Outcome After Metabolic Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- Protocol for a novel approach to developing a single pan-specialty 'meta-core outcome set': An example from the field of surgical oncology.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Development of the European Laparoscopic Intermediate Urological Skills LUSs2 Curriculum: A Delphi Consensus from the European School of Urology.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Article
- Prospective evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications for use in cancer pathways following diagnosis: a systematic review.BMJ oncology · 2024Review
- The effect of health literacy, self-efficacy, social support and fear of disease progression on the health-related quality of life of patients with cancer in China: a structural equation model.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
- Development of a Bariatric Surgery Core Data Set for an International Registry.Obesity surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDevelopment of a core outcome set (COS) for clinical effectiveness trials in esophageal cancer resection surgery.
backgroundInconsistency and heterogeneity in outcome reporting after esophageal cancer resection surgery hampers comparison of trial results and undermines evidence synthesis. COSs provide an evidence-based approach to these challenges.
methodsA long list of clinical and patient-reported outcomes was identified and categorized into outcome domains. Domains were operationalized into a questionnaire and patients and health professionals rated the importance of items from 1 (not important) to 9 (extremely important) in 2 Delphi survey rounds. Retained items were discussed at a consensus meeting and a final COS proposed. Professionals were surveyed to request endorsement of the COS.
resultsA total of 68 outcome domains were identified and operationalized into a questionnaire; 116 (91%) of consenting patients and 72 (77%) of health professionals completed round 1. Round 2 response rates remained high (87% patients, 93% professionals). Rounds 1 and 2 prioritized 43 and 19 items, respectively. Retained items were discussed at a patient consensus meeting and a final 10-item COS proposed, endorsed by 61/67 (91%) professionals and including: overall survival; in-hospital mortality; inoperability; need for another operation; respiratory complications; conduit necrosis and anastomotic leak; severe nutritional problems; ability to eat/drink; problems with acid indigestion or heartburn; and overall quality of life.
conclusionsThe COS is recommended for all pragmatic clinical effectiveness trials in esophageal cancer resection surgery. Further work is needed to delineate the definitions and parameters and explore best methods for measuring the individual outcomes.
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.