ReviewCancers2025
Defining Standard Data Reporting in Pelvic Exenteration Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A PelvEx Collaborative Review of Current Data Reporting.
Review in Cancers, 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.
- Prospective case-control cohort analysis of two-day/two-stage pelvic exenteration surgery: Safety, feasibility, acceptability and medium-term outcomes.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- Quality improvement in exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancy: the role of a registry.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPelvic exenteration (PEx) is a radical procedure used in the treatment of locally advanced (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). With recent advancements in perioperative treatment regimens, there has been renewed interest in this procedure as it offers the opportunity for complete tumour resection in a select cohort. This has resulted in large heterogeneity in outcome reporting, making comparing and conducting a meta-analysis of published results challenging. Standardising outcome reporting will ensure meaningful data reporting and allow the cross-centre comparison of data.
aimsTo conduct a systematic review of the current literature, to identify the various outcomes reported for PEx in rectal cancer, and to develop a standard outcome reporting set.
methodsA systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant domains were identified first. Data elements (DEs) were extracted verbatim prior to standardisation and mapping to relevant domains.
resultsThere has been a noticeable trend of increased literature on PEx in the last decade. Forty-nine papers were identified. A total of 1549 DEs were extracted verbatim. These were standardised to 119 unique DEs mapped to ten distinct domains capturing the patient care journey. There was large variation in the frequency of reporting, with some key outcomes reported in a limited number of studies.
conclusionsThere is considerable heterogeneity at present in data reporting for PEx in LARC and LRRC. Standardisation of outcomes is the first step in guiding the development of a core information set to overcome heterogeneity and guide future research development.
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.