ArticleCancers2025
A Prospective Observational Cohort Study Comparing High-Complexity Against Conventional Pelvic Exenteration Surgery.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Prospective case-control cohort analysis of two-day/two-stage pelvic exenteration surgery: Safety, feasibility, acceptability and medium-term outcomes.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- Physical fitness and body composition assessments in advanced cancer patients undergoing exenterative surgery - A pilot cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
- New National Network of Experts (Japan Pelvic Exenteration Network: J-PEN) Formed in a Bid to Improve Outcomes of Pelvic Exenteration in Japan.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2025Article
- Empty pelvis syndrome as a cause of major morbidity after pelvic exenteration: validation of a core data set.The British journal of surgery · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.