Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29605024›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2018

Benchmarking rectal cancer care: institutional compliance with a longitudinal checklist.

William C Chapman, Pamela Choi, Alexander T Hawkins, Steven R Hunt, Matthew L Silviera, Paul E Wise, Matthew G Mutch, Sean C Glasgow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William C ChapmanDepartment of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Pamela ChoiDepartment of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Alexander T HawkinsDivision of General Surgery, Colon & Rectal Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Steven R HuntDepartment of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Matthew L SilvieraDepartment of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Paul E WiseDepartment of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Matthew G MutchDepartment of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Sean C GlasgowDepartment of Surgery, Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: glasgows@wustl.edu.
Washington University in St. Louis · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY TRAINING GRANTT32CA009621 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI TIMOTHY J. EBERLEIN, William E. Gillanders · 1988 to 2026
$12.9M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009621
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2012, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons published the Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist, a consensus document listing 25 essential elements of care for all patients undergoing radical surgery for rectal cancer. The authors herein examine checklist adherence in a mature, multisurgeon specialty academic practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective medical record review of patients undergoing elective radical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma over a 23-mo period was conducted. Checklists were completed post hoc for each patient, and these results were tabulated to determine levels of compliance. Subgroup analyses by compliance and experience levels of the treating surgeon were performed.

resultsA total of 161 patients underwent resection, demonstrating a median completion rate of 84% per patient. Poor compliance was noted consistently in documenting baseline sexual function (0%), multidisciplinary discussion of treatment plans (16.8%), pelvic nerve identification (8.7%) and leak testing (52.9%), and radial margin status reporting (57.5%). Junior surgeons achieved higher rates of compliance and were more likely to restage after neoadjuvant therapy (67.9% versus 29.4%, P < 0.001), discuss patients at tumor board (31.3% versus 13.2%, P = 0.014), and document leak testing (86.7% versus 47.2%, P = 0.005) compared with senior surgeons.

conclusionsChecklist compliance within a high-volume, specialty academic practice remains varied. Only surgeon experience level was significantly associated with high checklist compliance. Junior surgeons achieved greater compliance with certain items, particularly those that reinforce decision-making. Further efforts to standardize rectal cancer care should focus on checklist implementation, targeted surgeon outreach, and assessment of checklist compliance correlation to clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedAnastomosis, SurgicalAnastomotic LeakBenchmarkingChecklistClinical CompetenceClinical Decision-MakingFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingPreoperative CareCancerChecklistComplianceRectalSurgery

Identifiers

PMID29605024
PMCPMC5881924
OpenAlexW2793861641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.