Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40765669›Full record

ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2025

The Good and Bad of Regionalizing Colon Cancer Care.

Sara L Schaefer, Calista M Harbaugh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Sara L SchaeferDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Calista M HarbaughCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Funding

Interdisciplinary Research Training Center in Cancer Care DeliveryT32CA236621 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Lauren P Wallner · 2020 to 2026
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA236621
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hospitals in the United States continue to merge into expanding hospital networks. As the U.S. health care landscape rapidly evolves toward regionalized hospital networks, there is a critical opportunity for these networks to fulfill their clinical potential toward coordination of care, particularly for cancer patients. While regionalization aims broadly to improve care by distributing services optimally, centralization remains the dominant approach. This article explores regionalization and centralization specific to colon cancer care. We examine the benefits and drawbacks of centralization of colon cancer surgery as a strategy to enhance patient outcomes and access to care. Additional methods for optimizing regional care delivery also exist. In this article, we also present additional strategies for improving regional care delivery and clinical integration for colon cancer patients.

Indexed as

access to carecentralizationcolorectal surgeryregionalizationrural surgery

Identifiers

PMID40765669
PMCPMC12321368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.