Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32005123›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2020

Improving quality of care and clinical outcomes for rectal cancer through clinical audits in a multicentre cancer care organisation.

M G Torras, E Canals, C Muñoz-Montplet, A Vidal, D Jurado, A Eraso, S Villà, M Caro, J Molero, M Macià and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2020. 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
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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, 6 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M G TorrasClinical Management Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Barcelona, Spain. gtorras@iconcologia.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7905-6247
E CanalsRadiation Oncology Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Girona, Spain.
C Muñoz-MontpletMedical Physics and Radiation Protection Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Girona, Spain.
A VidalQuality and Results Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Girona, Spain.
D JuradoMedical Physics and Radiation Protection Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Girona, Spain.
A ErasoRadiation Oncology Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Girona, Spain.
S VillàRadiation Oncology Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Badalona, Spain.
M CaroRadiation Oncology Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Badalona, Spain.
J MoleroMedical Physics and Radiation Protection Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Girona, Spain.
M MaciàRadiation Oncology Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Hospitalet del Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
M PuigdemontHospital Tumor Registry, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Girona, Spain.
E González-MuñozQuality and Results Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Girona, Spain.
A LópezCancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Hospitalet del Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
F GuedeaRadiation Oncology Department, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Barcelona, Spain.
J M BorrasDepartment of Clinical Sciences, IDIBELL, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Institut Català d'Oncologia · ESInstitut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionColorectal cancer treatment requires a complex, multidisciplinary approach. Because of the potential variability, monitoring through clinical audits is advisable. This study assesses the effects of a quality improvement action plan in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and treated with radiotherapy.

methodsComparative, multicentre study in two cohorts of 120 patients each, selected randomly from patients diagnosed with rectal cancer who had initiated radiotherapy with a curative intent. Based on the results from a baseline clinical audit in 2013, a quality improvement action plan was designed and implemented; a second audit in 2017 evaluated its impact.

resultsStandardised information was present on 77.5% of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) staging reports. Treatment strategies were similar in all three study centres. Of the patients whose treatment was interrupted, just 9.7% received a compensation dose. There was an increase in MRI re-staging from 32.5 to 61.5%, and a significant decrease in unreported circumferential resection margins following neoadjuvant therapy (ypCRM), from 34.5 to 5.6% (p <  0.001).

conclusionsThe comparison between two clinical audits showed improvements in neoadjuvant radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients. Some indicators reveal areas in need of additional efforts, for example to reduce the overall treatment time.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAdenocarcinomaAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Squamous CellDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyPrognosisRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRectal NeoplasmsSurvival RateClinical auditClinical practice variabilityImprovement Quality processRadiotherapy processRectal Cancer

Identifiers

PMID32005123
PMCPMC6995177
OpenAlexW3007438520

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.