Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39960667›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Knowledge Translation Interventions to Address Gaps in Rectal Cancer Care.

Erin D Kennedy, Amandeep Pooni, Selina Schmocker, Carl Brown, Anthony MacLean, Nancy N Baxter, Lara Williams, Marko Simunovic, Sender Liberman, Sébastien Drolet and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

13 authors.

Erin D KennedyDepartment of Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Amandeep PooniUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Selina SchmockerZane Cohen Centre for Digestive Diseases, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Carl BrownDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, St Paul's Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Anthony MacLeanDepartment of Surgery, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Nancy N BaxterFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lara WilliamsDepartment of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Marko SimunovicDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sender LibermanDepartment of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Sébastien DroletDepartment of Surgery, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Katerina NeumannDepartment of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Kartik JhaveriUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Richard KirschUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Over the last 2 decades, increasing use of multimodal strategies has led to significant improvements in oncologic outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. However, uptake of these strategies varies among centers, suggesting that best evidence is not always implemented into practice. Objectives: To identify gaps in care and initiate knowledge translation interventions to close existing gaps. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-year multifaceted, prospective quality improvement study was conducted at 8 high-volume rectal cancer centers across Canada. From April 2016 to December 2018, patients with stage I to III rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision were enrolled. Data were analyzed from January 2022 through December 2023. Interventions: Process measures for multimodal strategies to optimize rectal cancer care were selected and prospectively collected for patients with stage I to III rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision. Knowledge translation interventions were implemented to increase uptake of these strategies. Main Outcome and Measure: Change in uptake of process measures over the study period, with measures taken every 3 months, from time 1 (baseline) to time 7 (18 months). Results: Among 645 patients with stage I to III rectal cancer (389 male [60.3%]; mean [SD] age, 68.1 [8.2] years), iterative results showed that uptake of 6 of 12 process measures (eg, presentation at multidisciplinary cancer conference: 22 of 77 patients [28.6%] at time 1 to 64 of 91 patients [70.3%] at time 7; P < .001) and 1 pathology measure (inadequate lymph node retrieval: 15 of 77 patients at time 1 [19.5%] to 6 of 91 patients at time 7 [6.6%]; P = .002) improved over time. Positive circumferential resection margin, positive distal margin, and inadequate lymph node retrieval rates at 2 years were 44 patients (6.8%), 10 patients (1.6%), and 79 patients (12.2%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, there was an improvement in 6 process measures and 1 pathology measure for patients with stage I to III rectal cancer. Furthermore, this study led to standardized processes of care for rectal cancer that may facilitate continuous quality improvement and multicenter trials across Canada.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementRectal NeoplasmsTranslational Research, BiomedicalAgedCanadaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID39960667
PMCPMC11833516

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.