SynthesisUpdates in surgery2017
Discrepancies between NCCN and ESMO guidelines in the management of anal cancer: a qualitative review.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing and contrasting clinical consensus and guidelines for anal intraepithelial neoplasia in different geographical regions.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Imaging of Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Survey Results and Expert Opinion from the Rectal and Anal Cancer Disease-Focused Panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- Management of the adenocarcinoma of the upper rectum: a reappraisal.Updates in surgery · 2021Review
- Endorectal Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Rectal Cancer Staging: A Modern Multimodality Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Locoregional Therapy in De novo Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an ever-growing need, with the ongoing developments in research and the progress towards patient centered care, to delineate standardized protocols of management of anal cancer. However, guidelines from different societies show some degree of disagreement. This is a systematic review of the literature to identify similarities and discrepancies between the guidelines for the management of anal cancer drafted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). We found essentially similar management for investigation, diagnosis, chemotherapy regimens, and radiotherapy doses in both ESMO and NCCN recommendations in the management of anal cancer. There were few differences, which included the levels of evidence and grades of recommendations, the delineation of radiotherapy fields, and the treatment of the elderly and personalized medicine based on genetics. The follow-up regime is also marginally different in the first 2 years. Even if the observed differences may be justified by a different implementation of evidence-based medicine among different countries for particular management modalities of anal cancer, we identified the grey areas which need further study. In addition, these facets should be assessed more carefully when planning future guidelines.
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.