ReviewCancers2023
Macroscopic Evaluation of Colon Cancer Resection Specimens.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy: insights from a single centre.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Colorectal cancer surgery without preoperative histology does not compromise surgical quality-A nationwide cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- D3 lymph node dissection in right-sided colon cancer: routine requirement or selective application?Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Colon cancer is a common disease internationally. Outcomes have not improved to the same degree as in rectal cancer, where the focus on total mesorectal excision and pathological feedback has significantly contributed to improved survival and reduced local recurrence. Colon cancer surgery shows significant variation around the world, with differences in mesocolic integrity, height of the vascular ligation and length of the bowel resected. This leads to variation in well-recognised quality measures like lymph node yield. Pathologists are able to assess all of these variables and are ideally placed to provide feedback to surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team to improve surgical quality over time. With a move towards complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation to remove the primary tumour and all mechanisms of spread within an intact package, pathological feedback will be central to improving outcomes for patients with operable colon cancer. This review focusses on the key quality measures and the evidence that underpins them.
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.