ArticleBMC cancer2023
Evaluation of optimum classification measures used to define textbook outcome among patients undergoing curative-intent resection of gastric cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Textbook Outcome (TO) and Textbook Oncological Outcome (TOO) on Survival Following Surgery for Esophagogastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Preoperative prediction of textbook outcome in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by interpretable machine learning: A multicenter cohort study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- How to measure quality of surgery as a component of multimodality treatment of gastric cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2024Review
- The Clinical Impact of Textbook Outcome in Patients With Stage 1 Gastric Cancer Who Received Laparoscopy-assisted Gastrectomy or Robotic-assisted Gastrectomy.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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
backgroundTextbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure reflecting various aspects of services provided to patients with solid malignancies. We sought to evaluate the importance of various TO components previously proposed for gastric cancer.
methodsProspectively maintained electronic databases of 1,743 patients treated in two academic surgical centres were reviewed. Six candidate definitions of TO were evaluated based on their ability to accurately predict patients' prognosis by Cox proportional hazards modelling.
resultsTO definition combining 10 measures corresponding to complete tumour resection with an uneventful postoperative course showed the best goodness of fit by achieving the lowest values of Akaike (AIC) and Bayesian (BIC) information criteria and the best predictive performance based on the highest value of c-index. The overall median survival was significantly longer for patients with than without textbook outcome (69.0 vs 20.1 months, P < 0.001). TO maintained its prognostic value in a multivariate model controlling for age, sex, comorbidities, treatment, and tumour related variables and was associated with a 39% lower risk of death (HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.51 - 0.73, P < 0.001). Nine variables identified as predictors of TO were used to develop a nomogram showing very good correlation between the predicted and actual probability of achieving TO. The AUC of ROC obtained from the nomogram was 0.752 (95% CI 0.727 to 0.781).
conclusionsA uniform definition of textbook outcome provides clinically relevant prognostic information and could be used in quality improvement programs for gastric cancer patients.
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.