ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2019
Variation in the Height of Rectal Cancers According to the Diagnostic Modalities.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standard of practice imaging vs. PET/MR: a comparative prospective study in rectal cancer staging.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy vs Up-Front Surgery for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The efficacy of open transanal drainage tube against anastomotic leakage in left-sided colorectal cancer surgery: a propensity score matching study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of flexible endoscopy and magnetic resonance imaging in determining the tumor height in rectal cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- How do they measure up: Assessing the height of rectal cancer with digital rectal exam, endoscopy, and MRISurgery in practice and science · 2022Article
- Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes.Annals of coloproctology · 2021Review
- Measurement of rectal tumor height from the anal verge on MRI: a comparison of internal versus external anal sphincter.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough the height of a rectal tumor above the anal verge (tumor height) partly determines the treatment strategy, no practical standard exists for reporting this. We aimed to demonstrate the differences in tumor height according to the diagnostic modality used for its measurement.
methodsWe identified 100 patients with rectal cancers located within 15 cm of the anal verge who had recorded tumor heights measured by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), colonoscopy, and digital rectal examination (DRE). Tumor height measured by using MRI was compared with those measured by using DRE and colonoscopy to assess reporting inconsistencies. Factors associated with differences in tumor height among the modalities were also evaluated.
resultsThe mean tumor heights were 77.8 ± 3.3, 52.9 ± 2.3, and 68.9 ± 3.1 mm when measured by using MRI, DRE, and colonoscopy, respectively (P < 0.001). Agreement among the 3 modalities in terms of tumor sublocation within the rectum was found in only 39% of the patients. In the univariate and the multivariate analyses, clinical stage showed a possible association with concordance among modalities, but age, sex, and luminal location of the tumor were not associated with differences among modalities.
conclusionThe heights of rectal cancer differed according to the diagnostic modality. Tumor height has implications for rectal cancer's surgical planning and for interpreting comparative studies. Hence, a consensus is needed for measuring and reporting tumor height.
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.