SynthesisIrish journal of medical science2024
"Textbook outcome(s)" in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Irish journal of medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Binary ICU Admission: Duration-Sensitive Evaluation and Patient-Level Reclassification of Textbook Outcome After Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Understanding Textbook outcome failure after robotic colorectal cancer surgery: a multicenter domain-specific analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Defining "optimal recovery" in colorectal surgery: a path to precision prehabilitation.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Textbook oncologic outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for colorectal peritoneal metastases: a single-centre cohort analysis.Pleura and peritoneum · 2026Article
- Effect of neoadjuvant therapy on textbook outcomes in minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Surgical Textbook Outcomes in the Era of Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment for Skin Cancers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Textbook Outcome/Textbook Oncological Outcome for Pancreatic Cancer Treatment.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
- Textbook Outcome After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
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 used in surgery to evaluate post operative outcomes. No review has synthesised the evidence in relation to TO regarding the elements surgeons are utilising to inform their TO composite measure and the rates of TO achieved.
methodsOur systematic review and meta analysis was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central registry of controlled trials were searched up to 8th November 2023. Pooled proportions of TO, clinical factors considered and risk factors in relation to TO are reported.
resultsFifteen studies with 301,502 patients were included in our systematic review while fourteen studies comprising of 247,843 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Pooled rates of TO achieved were 55% with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 54-55%. When stratified by elective versus mixed case load, rates were 56% (95% CI 49-62) and 54% (95% CI 50-58), respectively. Studies reported differing definitions of TO. Reported predictors of achieving TO include age, left sided surgery and elective nature.
conclusionsTO is achieved, on average in 55% of reported cases and it may predict short and long term post operative patient outcomes. This study did not detect a difference in rates between elective versus mixed case load TO proportions. There is no standardised definition in use of TO. Standardisation of the composite is likely required to enable meaning comparison using TO in the future and a Delphi consensus is warranted.
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.