ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology2026
Feasibility of Clinically Prioritized Colorectal Cancer Quality Indicators With a New South Wales Population-Based Linked Dataset.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Feasibility of Clinically Prioritized Colorectal Cancer Quality Indicators With a New South Wales Population-Based Linked Dataset.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the feasibility of using population-based linked data to measure an Australian multidisciplinary set of 26 colorectal cancer (CRC) quality indicators.
methodsData were obtained on adult patients diagnosed with CRC (ICD-10-AM codes C18-C20) between July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2019 from the New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry. The NSW Cancer Registry data were linked to the Clinical Cancer Registry, Admitted Patient Data Collection, and death records. The feasibility assessment included (1) mapping required variables to available data, (2) review of publicly available reports to identify routine reporting of the indicators, (3) assessment of data completeness and coverage using proportional analyses, and (4) pilot test calculation of feasible indicators where data exist.
resultsData mapping found that 14 indicators were potentially feasible. Linked data were available for 38,430 patients to test eight surgical indicators and 8489 patients to test six neoadjuvant therapy indicators. The data required to measure these indicators had significant limitations in data coverage, completeness, and quality, rendering the calculations unreliable and some implausible. The data completeness for staging ranged from 74% to 85%, and almost one half of diagnosis dates were illogical. Overall, six of the 26 indicators were feasible and reliable to measure. These addressed unplanned reoperation/readmission, colonoscopy, surgical mortality, and survival.
conclusionThis study identified six clinically relevant quality indicators feasible to measure using NSW population-based data. However, these indicators were surgical processes and outcomes. There are insufficient data to produce adequate and clinically meaningful quality measurements for a multidisciplinary CRC team, particularly in diagnostic workup, neoadjuvant therapy, and supportive care.
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.