Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37648387›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Development of a risk prediction tool for patients with locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer undergoing pelvic exenteration: protocol for a mixed-methods study.

Kilian Brown, Michael Solomon, Kheng-Seong Ng, Paul Sutton, Cherry Koh, Kate White, Daniel Steffens, EviSurg Research Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kilian BrownDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia kilian.brown@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0967-8515
Michael SolomonDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kheng-Seong NgDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Paul SuttonColorectal & Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Cherry KohDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kate WhiteSydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4763-1734
Daniel SteffensSurgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
EviSurg Research Group
The University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPelvic exenteration (PE) surgery represents the only potentially curative treatment option for patients with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer (LARRC). Given the potential morbidity, whether or not PE should be recommended for an individual patient presents a major decisional conflict. This study aims to identify the outcomes of PE for which there is consensus among patients, carers and clinicians regarding their importance in guiding treatment decision-making, and to develop a risk prediction tool which predicts these outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be conducted at a specialist PE centre, and employ a mixed-methods study design, divided into three distinct phases. In phase 1, outcomes of PE will be identified through a comprehensive systematic review of the literature (phase 1a), followed by exploration of the experiences of individuals who have undergone PE for LARRC and their carers (phase 1b, target sample size 10-20 patients and 5-10 carers). In phase 2, a survey of patients, their carers and clinicians will be conducted using Delphi methodology to explore consensus around the outcomes of highest priority and the level of influence each outcome should have on treatment decision-making. In phase 3 a, risk prediction tool will be developed using data from a single PE referral centre (estimated sample size 500 patients) to predict priority outcomes using multivariate modelling, and externally validated using data from an international PE collaboration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted for phases 1 and 2 (X22-0422 and 2022/ETH02659) and for maintenance of the database used in phase 3 (X13-0283 and HREC/13/RPAH/504). Informed consent will be obtained from participants in phases 1b and 2; a waiver of consent for secondary use of data in phase 3 will be sought. Study results will be submitted for publication in international and/or national peer reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022351909.

Indexed as

Neoplasms, Second PrimaryPelvic ExenterationRectal NeoplasmsConsensusDatabases, FactualHumansResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicColorectal surgeryGastrointestinal tumoursPatient Reported Outcome Measures

Identifiers

PMID37648387
PMCPMC10471871
OpenAlexW4386295838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.