Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38761290›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2024

Development of a reliable surgical quality assurance tool for gastrectomy in oncological trials.

A Harris, J B Butterworth, P R Boshier, S Mavroveli, B Vadhwana, C J Peters, B W Eom, C-C Yeh, S Mikhail, M Sasako and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

A HarrisDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Commonwealth Building, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, UK.
J B ButterworthDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Commonwealth Building, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, UK.
P R BoshierDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Commonwealth Building, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, UK.
S MavroveliDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Commonwealth Building, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, UK.
B VadhwanaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Commonwealth Building, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, UK.
C J PetersDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Commonwealth Building, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, UK.
B W EomCenter for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
C-C YehDepartment of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
S MikhailDepartment of General Surgery, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
M SasakoDepartment of Surgery, Yodogawa Christian Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Y-W KimCenter for Gastric Cancer, National Cancer Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
G B HannaDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, 7th Floor Commonwealth Building, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, UK. g.hanna@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2897-0140

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite its recognized importance, there is currently no reliable tool for surgical quality assurance (SQA) of gastrectomy in surgical oncology. The aim of this study was to develop an SQA tool for gastrectomy and to apply this tool within the ADDICT Trial in order to assess the extent and completeness of lymphadenectomy.

methodsThe operative steps for D1+ and D2 gastrectomy have been previously described in the literature and ADDICT trial manual. Two researchers also performed fieldwork in the UK and Japan to document key operative steps through photographs and semi-structured interviews with expert surgeons. This provided the steps that were used as the framework for the SQA tool. Sixty-two photographic cases from the ADDICT Trial were rated by three independent surgeons. Generalizability (G) theory determined inter-rater reliability. D-studies examined the effect of varying the number of assessors and photographic series they rated. Chi-square assessed intra-rater reliability, comparing how the individual assessor's responses corresponded to their global rating for extent of lymphadenectomy.

resultsThe tool comprised 20 items, including 19 anatomical landmarks and a global rating score. Overall reliability had G-coefficient of 0.557. Internal consistency was measured with a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.869 and Chi-square confirmed intra-rater reliability for each assessor as < 0.05.

conclusionsA photographic surgical quality assurance tool is presented for gastrectomy. Using this tool, the assessor can reliably determine not only the quality but also the extent of the lymphadenectomy performed based on remaining anatomy rather than the excised specimen.

Indexed as

GastrectomyLymph Node ExcisionQuality Assurance, Health CareStomach NeoplasmsHumansReproducibility of ResultsGastrectomyGastric cancerSurgical quality assurance

Identifiers

PMID38761290
PMCPMC11193692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.