ArticleIndian journal of surgical oncology2025
The INDEPSO-ISPSM Consensus on Peritoneal Malignancies-Methodology.
Article in Indian journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The numerous international guidelines on cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) do not cover many clinically relevant issues for which evidence is limited and some regional issues (HIPEC in limited resource settings, age-limit for CRS, etc.). We describe the methodology of a consensus CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal malignancies carried out under the aegis of the two national societies for peritoneal oncology-INDEPSO and ISPSM. The modified Delphi technique was used with two rounds of voting. Eight key topics were selected by a working group of 29 members. Questionnaires comprising of closed-ended questions were disseminated through the online SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com) platform. A panel of 56 surgical, gastrointestinal, and gynecologic oncologists with a minimum of 5 years of experience with CRS-HIPEC voted on 260 questions. A consensus was reached if any of the options received 70% or more votes (> 90% = strong consensus). The response rate was 98.2% in round I and 94.6% in round II. A consensus was achieved on 80.7% questions after two rounds (43.0% after round I; 36.9% after round II). It was the highest in the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) section (93.3%) and the lowest (68.0%) for ovarian cancer. A strong consensus was reached on 59 (22.6%) questions (highest for the technical section (34.2%); lowest in the ERAS section (16.6%)). This consensus which had a high rate of participation should be a useful clinical resource for surgeons treating peritoneal malignancies in India and other regions with a similar demographic and socioeconomic background. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-024-02118-2.
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.