Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31967442›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2020

Management of rectal cancer in Canada: an evidence-based comparison of clinical practice guidelines

Zuhaib M. Mir, David Yu, Shaila J. Merchant, Christopher M. Booth, Sunil V. Patel

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Zuhaib M. MirFrom the Department of Surgery, Queen’s University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. (Mir, Yu, Merchant, Patel); and the Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. (Booth).
David YuFrom the Department of Surgery, Queen’s University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. (Mir, Yu, Merchant, Patel); and the Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. (Booth).
Shaila J. MerchantFrom the Department of Surgery, Queen’s University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. (Mir, Yu, Merchant, Patel); and the Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. (Booth).
Christopher M. BoothFrom the Department of Surgery, Queen’s University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. (Mir, Yu, Merchant, Patel); and the Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. (Booth).
Sunil V. PatelFrom the Department of Surgery, Queen’s University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ont. (Mir, Yu, Merchant, Patel); and the Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. (Booth).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality. Methods: We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I–III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared. Results: We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines. Conclusion: Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients.

Indexed as

CanadaChemoradiotherapyDigestive System Surgical ProceduresEndosonographyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingPostoperative CarePractice Guidelines as TopicRectal NeoplasmsSigmoidoscopy

Identifiers

PMID31967442
PMCPMC7828940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.