ArticleJAMA network open2025
Knowledge Translation Interventions to Address Gaps in Rectal Cancer Care.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Osteoporosis treatment gap and prescribing patterns in Ireland: a cross-sectional analysis of the DXA HIP project.BMJ open · 2026Article
- The Impact of Multidisciplinary Conference on Clinicians.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.