ReviewCancers2025
Defining Standard Data Reporting in Pelvic Exenterations for Non-Rectal Cancers: A Systematic 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 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.
- 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) was first described in the 1940s as a palliative procedure in managing cervical cancer. Since then, advancements in perioperative care have transformed the options available to patients. This highly morbid procedure now offers a "cure" in a select cohort of patients with locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The large volume of literature in this field has resulted in a heterogeneity of data reporting, making comparative analysis extremely difficult. As such, we set out to examine the current literature and identify currently reported outcomes to guide development of a core information set (CIS) for data reporting for PEx in non-rectal cancers.
methodsA systematic review was carried out. Studies reporting on outcomes following PEx for advanced and recurrent gynecological, urological, and other non-rectal malignancies were included. Standardized outcomes were extracted and mapped to pre-determined domains.
resultsForty-four studies were found to meet our inclusion criteria. A total of 1735 data elements (DEs) were extracted verbatim, and these were assimilated into 111 standard DEs across nine domains. A wide range of reporting frequencies was observed, with the pathological domain containing the highest overall frequencies of DE reporting. Conversely, patient-reported and functional outcomes were noted to be the domain with the lowest frequency.
conclusionsThis review highlights recent trends of increased reporting in the field of PEx and how this had invariably resulted in heterogeneous data reporting. We aim to guide the development of a CIS for reporting in non-rectal pelvic malignancies to help standardize future reporting.
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.