SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
The emperor has no clothes-the need for standardized anatomical segment definitions in the management of colon cancer.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is no standardized classification system for defining segments of colon carcinoma within cancer registries. We aimed to conduct a systematic literature review on studies that specifically address colon cancer and provide definitions for each segment.
methodsFive authors conducted an independent systematic literature search of studies on colon cancer between 01/1992 and 11/2023. Only English-language original articles including cohort studies, case series, previous reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials were considered for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were case reports, editorials, and letters. After identifying the relevant studies, those describing particular colon cancer segments were assessed. Whether or not oncologic outcomes were assessed, whether any definitions for particular colon cancer segments were used, were reviewed and extracted.
resultsA total of 9059 articles were screened, and 1143 of them were identified and included in the current study. Out of 1143 included articles, 130 defined the specific colon cancer segment. Distribution of included articles with definition ratios for each segment was as follows: Cecum (n = 2; 2.35%), ascending colon (n = 2; 1.94%), hepatic flexure (n = 2; 33.3%), transverse colon (n = 33; 42.85%), splenic flexure (n = 38; 58.46%), descending colon (n = 16; 8.04%), sigmoid colon (n = 34; 4.99%), and rectosigmoid colon (n = 16; 15.23%). A total of 397 articles reported long-term oncologic outcomes.
conclusionOur study unveils discrepancies in the published literature, revealing that nearly 10% of the studies focusing on colon cancer provide various definitions for each colonic segment. Standardizing the definitions of colon cancer segments is essential to prevent the use of arbitrary definitions, which can result in inconsistency and hinder accurate outcome assessments.
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.