SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2024
The utility of synoptic operation reports in colorectal surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Design of a Consensus Derived Synoptic Operative Report for Thyroid Surgery.World journal of surgery · 2025Guideline
- Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Documentation: Assessing its Frequency, Quality, and Impact.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Implementation of Synoptic Reports in Enhancing Documentation Practices in Pediatric Surgical Oncology: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate documentation is crucial in surgical patient care. Synoptic reports (SR) are structured checklist-based reports that offer a standardised alternative to traditional narrative reports (NR). This systematic review aims to assess the completeness of SR compared to NR in colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Secondary outcomes include the time to completion, surgeon satisfaction, educational value, research value, and barriers to implementation.
methodsProspective or retrospective studies that assessed SR compared to NR in colorectal cancer surgery procedures were identified through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), CIHNAL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), and Cochrane. One thousand two articles were screened, and eight studies met the inclusion criteria after full-text review of 17 papers.
resultsAnalysis included 1797 operative reports (NR, 729; SR, 1068). Across studies reporting this outcome, the completeness of documentation was significantly higher in SR (P < 0.001). Reporting of secondary outcomes was limited, with a predominant focus on research value. Several studies demonstrated significantly reduced data extraction times when utilising SR. Surgeon satisfaction with SR was high, and these reports were seen as valuable tools for research and education. Barriers to implementation included integrating SR into existing electronic medical records (EMR) and surgeon concerns regarding increased administrative burden.
conclusionsSR offer advantages in completeness, data extraction, and communication compared to NR. Surgeons perceive them as beneficial for research, quality improvement, and teaching. This review supports the necessity for development of user-friendly SR that seamlessly integrate into pre-existing EMRs, optimising patient care and enhancing the quality of CRC surgical documentation.
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.