SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Systematic evaluation of guidelines for laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic management for colon cancer.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo understand the methodological quality of recent guidelines for laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic management for colon cancer and to analyze the heterogeneity and possible reasons for the main recommendations.
methodsA systematic and comprehensive search of databases and relevant websites was conducted to collect guidelines for laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer in the last 10 years that met the inclusion criteria. The AGREE II manual was used to evaluate the included guidelines and to assess and analyze the heterogeneity and reasons for key recommendations about the surgery.
resultsA total of fifteen guidelines were included in this study. Only two guidelines had an overall score greater than 60% and were recommended for clinical use. Eleven guidelines had an overall score of 30-60%, and two guidelines had an overall score of less than 30%. Further analysis of the reasons for heterogeneity in the guideline recommendations and evidence was performed for nine guidelines. This study found that only 36.1% of the evidence levels recommended in the guidelines were high. Significant heterogeneity exists in the main recommendations, mainly because the relevant content is not mentioned or described in detail.
conclusionThe quality of guidelines for laparoscopic colon cancer surgery is variable, and there is significant heterogeneity among key recommendations. And the level of evidence underlying the recommendations was generally not high. Further guideline updates should address the causes of the above heterogeneity.
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.