ReviewWorld journal of surgical oncology2020
Outcome quality standards in advanced ovarian cancer surgery.
Review in World journal of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A folate receptor-targeted NIR-II probe improves intraoperative imaging and surgery of metastatic ovarian cancer.Science advances · 2026Article
- Early- versus late-onset mortality trends in breast and female genital cancers in Spain, 1999-2024.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Article
- The Impact of Liquid Biopsy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Drug resistance‑related gene targets and molecular mechanisms in the A2780/Taxol‑resistant epithelial ovarian cancer cell line.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- Should We Abandon Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer? A Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Factors associated with emergency room readmission after elective surgery for ovarian carcinoma.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Article
- Surgery in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Associated with Cytoreductive Surgery in the Treatment of Advanced Ovarian Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Postoperative pulmonary complications and outcomes in cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2022Article
- Impact of prehabilitation during neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery on ovarian cancer patients: a pilot study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Observational
- Relationship Between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Log Odds of Positive Lymph Nodes and Their Prognostic Role in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Patients With Optimal Cytoreductive Surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Correction to: Outcome quality standards in advanced ovarian cancer surgery.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAdvanced ovarian cancer surgery (AOCS) frequently results in serious postoperative complications. Because managing AOCS is difficult, some standards need to be established that allow surgeons to assess the quality of treatment provided and consider what aspects should improve. This study aimed to identify quality indicators (QIs) of clinical relevance and to establish their acceptable quality limits (i.e., standard) in AOCS. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a systematic search on clinical practice guidelines, consensus conferences, and reviews on the outcome and quality of AOCS to identify which QIs have clinical relevance in AOCS. We then searched the literature (from January 2006 to December 2018) for each QI in combination with the keywords of advanced ovarian cancer, surgery, outcome, and oncology. Standards for each QI were determined by statistical process control techniques. The acceptable quality limits for each QI were defined as being within the limits of the 99.8% interval, which indicated a favorable outcome.
resultsA total of 38 studies were included. The QIs selected for AOCS were complete removal of the tumor upon visual inspection (complete cytoreductive surgery), a residual tumor of < 1 cm (optimal cytoreductive surgery), a residual tumor of > 1 cm (suboptimal cytoreductive surgery), major morbidity, and 5-year survival. The rates of complete cytoreductive surgery, optimal cytoreductive surgery, suboptimal cytoreductive surgery, morbidity, and 5-year survival had quality limits of < 27%, < 23%, > 39%, > 33%, and < 27%, respectively.
conclusionOur results provide a general view of clinical indicators for AOCS. Acceptable quality limits that can be considered as standards were established.
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.