SynthesisBJS open2025
Quality assurance of surgical interventions for pancreatic cancer: systematic review of multicentre randomized clinical trials.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical interventions for pancreatic cancer are complex due to numerous interacting components. This complexity can make the design and conduct of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) challenging due to variations in how surgical interventions are delivered across centres and surgeons. Quality assurance (QA) methods, such as those described within the CONSORT recommendations for non-pharmacological interventions (CONSORT-NPT), attempt to mitigate this. The extent of the adoption of such QA methods in RCTs evaluating surgical interventions for pancreatic cancer is unclear.
methodsA systematic review was conducted on multicentre RCTs evaluating surgical interventions for pancreatic cancer. Data were extracted within four QA domains described within the CONSORT-NPT checklist: surgical intervention description, standardization, adherence, and clinician and unit expertise.
resultsOf 2374 studies identified, 45 were eligible for inclusion in this review. Thirty-eight RCTs (84%) described the intervention and 20 (44%) attempted to standardize techniques. Information about permitted flexibility in surgical interventions was described in 14 RCTs (31%). Fourteen studies (31%) described methods used to measure adherence to the intervention, with intra-operative photographs/videos (ten studies) being the most common. Nineteen studies (42%) detailed surgeon or unit expertise, and six (13%) used credentialing criteria.
conclusionAlthough most RCTs described the intervention, reporting on standardization, adherence, and expertise was often lacking. This may affect RCT results and compromise the extent to which observed differences in clinical outcomes are due to the actual intervention being delivered. More rigorous application and reporting of QA measures are needed to improve confidence in the results of future RCTs, which may, in turn, enhance implementation in clinical practice.
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.