ReviewFrontiers in oncology2020
Quality Assurance, Metrics, and Improving Standards in Rectal Cancer Surgery in the United States.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defining key interventions for rectal cancer surgery: a literature review and expert panel consensus.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Review
- Article
- ASO Practice Guidelines Series: Multidisciplinary Management of Retroperitoneal Sarcomas.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Review
- "Impact of regional data reporting and feedback on rectal cancer surgery quality metrics in the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP)".Surgery open science · 2025Article
- Optimization of rectal cancer surgery outcomes in the United States: the influence of hospital volume on rates of sphincter preservation before and after practice standardization.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
- Measuring the quality of care in metastatic colorectal cancer: a scoping review of quality indicators.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Perspectives on Referring for Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Survey Study of Gastroenterologist and General Surgeons in Iowa.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Article
- Diagnosing Provider, Referral Patterns, Facility Type, and Patient Satisfaction Among Iowa Rectal Cancer Patients.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Article
- Colon and Rectal Cancer Management in Low-Resource Settings.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2022Article
- Multidisciplinary clinics for colorectal cancer may not provide more efficient coordination of care.American journal of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rectal cancer surgery has seen significant improvement in recent years. This has been possible in part due to focus on surgeon education and training, specific surgical quality metrics, and longitudinal tracking of data through the use of registries. In countries that have implemented such efforts, data has shown significant improvement in outcomes. However, there continues to be significant variation in rectal cancer outcomes and practices worldwide. Just within the United States, county level mortality rates from rectal cancer range from 8-15 per 100,000 to 38-59 per 100,000. In order to continue to improve rectal cancer patient outcomes, there needs to be evidence based guidelines and standards centered around the framework of structure, process, and outcomes. In addition, there must be a feedback system by which programs can continually assess their performance. Obtaining evidence for specific standards and measures can be challenging and requires analyzing available data and literature, some of which may be conflicting. This article evaluates the evolution of metrics and standards used for quality improvement in rectal cancer and ongoing efforts to further improve patient outcomes.
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.