ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
An updated evaluation of the implementation of the sigmoid take-off landmark 1 year after the official introduction in the Netherlands.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 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.
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
purposeThe definition of rectal cancer based on the sigmoid take-off (STO) was incorporated into the Dutch guideline in 2019, and became mandatory in the national audit from December 2020. This study aimed to evaluate the use of the STO in clinical practice and the added value of online training, stratified for the period before (group A, historical cohort) and after (group B, current cohort) incorporation into the national audit.
methodsParticipants, including radiologists, surgeons, surgical and radiological residents, interns, PhD students, and physician assistants, were asked to complete an online training program, consisting of questionnaires, 20 MRI cases, and a training document. Outcomes were agreement with the expert reference, inter-rater variability, and accuracy before and after the training.
resultsGroup A consisted of 86 participants and group B consisted of 114 participants. Familiarity with the STO was higher in group B (76% vs 88%, p = 0.027). Its use in multidisciplinary meetings was not significantly higher (50% vs 67%, p = 0.237). Agreement with the expert reference was similar for both groups before (79% vs 80%, p = 0.423) and after the training (87% vs 87%, p = 0.848). Training resulted in significant improvement for both groups in classifying tumors located around the STO (group A, 69-79%; group B, 67-79%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe results of this study show that after the inclusion of the STO in the mandatory Dutch national audit, the STO was consequently used in only 67% of the represented hospitals. Online training has the potential to improve implementation and unambiguous assessment.
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.