ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
An international Delphi consensus for surgical quality assessment of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis in minimally invasive total gastrectomy for gastric cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic esophageal reconstruction with a diagonal stapling technique: technical description and early outcomes from a single-center series.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Kamikawa anastomosis in proximal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- [Evidence for the extent and oncological benefit of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- A Delphi-based exploration of factors impacting blood loss and operative time in robotic prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Observational
- 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
38 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive total gastrectomy (MITG) is a mainstay for curative treatment of patients with gastric cancer. To define and standardize optimal surgical techniques and further improve clinical outcomes through the enhanced MITG surgical quality, there must be consensus on the key technical steps of lymphadenectomy and anastomosis creation, which is currently lacking. This study aimed to determine an expert consensus from an international panel regarding the technical aspects of the performance of MITG for oncological indications using the Delphi method.
methodsA 100-point scoping survey was created based on the deconstruction of MITG into its key technical steps through local and international expert opinion and literature evidence. An international expert panel comprising upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in multiple rounds of a Delphi consensus. The panelists voted on the issues concerning importance, difficulty, or agreement using an online questionnaire. A priori consensus standard was set at > 80% for agreement to a statement. Internal consistency and reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's α.
resultsThirty expert upper gastrointestinal and general surgeons participated in three online Delphi rounds, generating a final consensus of 41 statements regarding MITG for gastric cancer. The consensus was gained from 22, 12, and 7 questions from Delphi rounds 1, 2, and 3, which were rephrased into the 41 statetments respectively. For lymphadenectomy and aspects of anastomosis creation, Cronbach's α for round 1 was 0.896 and 0.886, and for round 2 was 0.848 and 0.779, regarding difficulty or importance.
conclusionsThe Delphi consensus defined 41 steps as crucial for performing a high-quality MITG for oncological indications based on the standards of an international panel. The results of this consensus provide a platform for creating and validating surgical quality assessment tools designed to improve clinical outcomes and standardize surgical quality in MITG.
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.