Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39570322›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2025

A national survey of the provision of prehabilitation for oesophagogastric cancer patients in the UK.

S Barman, R C Walker, P P Pucher, S Jack, G Whyte, Mpw Grocott, M West, N Maynard, T Underwood, J Gossage and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2025. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

S BarmanGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
R C WalkerGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
P P PucherPortsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, UK.
S JackUniversity of Southampton, UK.
G WhyteLiverpool John Moores University, UK.
Mpw GrocottUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
M WestUniversity of Southampton, UK.
N MaynardOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
T UnderwoodUniversity of Southampton, UK.
J GossageGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
A DaviesGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
On Behalf Of The Og Prehabilitation Group And Augis Association Of Upper Gi Surgeons

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStudies have demonstrated that prehabilitation in oesophagogastric cancer (OGC) improves body composition, physical fitness and quality of life, and can reduce surgical complications. However, it is not offered in all OGC centres. Furthermore, definitions, funding and access to services vary. We conducted a survey of prehabilitation in OGC centres in England and Wales.

methodsOGC centres were identified through the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA). Survey questions were developed, piloted in two institutions and distributed via email in October 2022. Reminder emails were sent over two months until the survey closed in December 2022.

resultsResponses were received from 28 of 36 centres. There was near-universal agreement that prehabilitation should be considered standard of care for patients on curative pathways (27/28; 96%). Most centres (21/28; 75%) offered prehabilitation. The majority of respondents believed that prehabilitation should commence at diagnosis (27/28; 96%) and consist of at least aerobic training and dietitian input. Most (26/28; 93%) believed access to clinical psychologists should be included; however, only 12 (43%) had access to clinical psychologists. Respondents believed prehabilitation improves quality of life (26/28; 93%), fitness (26/28; 93%), smoking cessation (28/28; 100%), surgical complication rates (25/28; 89.3%), likelihood of proceeding to surgery (25/28; 89.3%) and overall survival (20/28; 71.4%).

conclusionsDespite barriers to funding and a lack of best practice guidelines, most units deliver prehabilitation. Units require higher quality evidence, consensus on the most important aspects of the intervention and core outcome sets to support the delivery of services and facilitate audit to assess the impact of their introduction.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsPreoperative CarePreoperative ExerciseStomach NeoplasmsEnglandHumansQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomWalesOesophagogastric cancerOGC centresPrehabilitationSurvey

Identifiers

PMID39570322
PMCPMC11957842

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.