Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31727644›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Development of a core information set for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study.

Angus G K McNair, Robert N Whistance, Barry Main, Rachael Forsythe, Rhiannon Macefield, Jonathan Rees, Anne Pullyblank, Kerry Avery, Sara Brookes, Michael G Thomas and 13 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. What Should Be Discussed When Considering a Vaginal Birth? A Delphi Consensus Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  6. Informing Decision-Making About Caesarean Birth: A Delphi Study to Develop a Core Information Set.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

23 authors.

Angus G K McNairCentre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK angus.mcnair@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2601-9258
Robert N WhistanceCentre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Barry MainCentre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0622-805X
Rachael ForsytheCentre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Rhiannon MacefieldCentre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jonathan ReesDivision of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Anne PullyblankGI Surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2199-1777
Kerry AveryCentre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5477-2418
Sara BrookesCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Michael G ThomasDivision of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Paul A SylvesterDivision of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Ann RussellConsumer Liaison Group, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
Alfred OliverConsumer Liaison Group, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
Dion MortonAcademic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Robin KennedyDepartment of Surgery, St Mark's Hospital, London, UK.
David JayneDepartment of Academic Surgery, Leeds Institute of Biological and Clinical Sciences, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK.
Richard HuxtableCentre for Ethics in Medicine, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Roland HackettColorectal Site Specific Group, South West Cancer Network, Bristol, UK.
Susan DuttonCSM, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mark G ColemanDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK.
Mia CardDivision of Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Julia BrownConsultant Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Jane BlazebyCentre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CS-2017-17-010Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objective'Core information sets' (CISs) represent baseline information, agreed by patients and professionals, to stimulate individualised patient-centred discussions. This study developed a CIS for use before colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery.

designThree phase consensus study: (1) Systematic literature reviews and patient interviews to identify potential information of importance to patients, (2) UK national Delphi survey of patients and professionals to rate the importance of the information, (3) international consensus meeting to agree on the final CIS.

settingUK CRC centres.

participantsPurposive sampling was conducted to ensure CRC centre representation based upon geographical region and caseload volume. Responses were received from 63/81 (78%) centres (90 professionals). Adult patients who had undergone CRC surgery were eligible, and purposive sampling was conducted to ensure representation based on age, sex and cancer location (rectum, left and right colon). Responses were received from 97/267 (35%) patients with a wide age range (29-87), equal sex ratio and cancer location. Attendees of the international Tripartite Colorectal Conference were eligible for the consensus meeting. OUTCOMES: Phase 1: Information of potential importance to patients was extracted verbatim and operationalised into a Delphi questionnaire. Phase 2: Patients and professionals rated the importance information on a 9-point Likert scale, and resurveyed following group feedback. Information rated of low importance were discarded using predefined criteria. Phase 3: A modified nominal group technique was used to gain final consensus in separate consensus meetings with patients and professionals.

resultsData sources identified 1216 pieces of information that informed a 98-item questionnaire. Analysis led to 50 and 23 information domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. The final CIS included 11 concepts including specific surgical complications, short and long-term survival, disease recurrence, stoma and quality of life issues.

conclusionsThis study has established a CIS for professionals to discuss with patients before CRC surgery.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesSystematic Reviews as TopicTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdomcolorectal surgerycommunicationgastrointestinal tumoursmedical ethics

Identifiers

PMID31727644
PMCPMC6886994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.