ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie
Use of population-based electronic databases for the identification of patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases potentially eligible for a surgical trial.
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome population-based recruitment methods, such as registries and databases, have been used to increase enrolment in clinical trials by identifying eligible participants based on baseline characteristics; however; these methods have not been tested in surgical trials, in which accrual occurs before surgery. We evaluated the use of population-based electronic databases to identify patients who potentially could be accrued to the Simultaneous Resection of Colorectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastases (RESECT) trial and compared it to the traditional methods used to accrue patients (e.g., multidisciplinary rounds, letters to community surgeons) for that same trial during the same period.
methodsAn electronic database (ePath) was interrogated every 2 weeks for patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from Feb. 1, 2017, to Mar. 30, 2019. A radiologic image database (OneView) was reviewed to identify those with liver metastases (level 1 screening). Reports were interrogated to identify potentially eligible patients for the RESECT trial (level 2 screening). A hepatobiliary surgeon reviewed radiology images to identify eligible patients for the trial (level 3 screening). The primary outcome was patient eligibility for the ongoing RESECT trial.
resultsThe population-based method identified 90 (11.2%) of 803 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer over the study period. Among the 90 patients, level 2 screening identified 60 (67%) potentially eligible patients for the RESECT trial. Of the 90 patients, 18 (20%) were eligible after radiographic image review (level 3 screening). Traditional accrual methods identified 38 patients with liver metastases, 27 (71%) of whom were identified as potentially eligible on level 2 screening, and 14 (37%) of whom were deemed to be eligible on level 3 screening. Twenty-six patients were identified by both methods. Twelve patients were identified by population-based methods alone, and 8 patients by traditional methods alone. Six eligible patients were identified by both methods. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups.
conclusionA population-based electronic database method of patient accrual was able to identify eligible participants for the RESECT trial. However, optimal accrual likely requires the use of traditional methods as well.
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.