ArticleBJS open2025
Management of right-sided obstructing colon cancers: scoping review.
Article in BJS open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients presenting with right-sided obstructing colon cancers (ROCCs) typically undergo emergency surgical resection. Emerging evidence suggests using a bridge-to-surgery (BTS) approach with a stoma or stent reduces mortality and perioperative morbidity while not effecting long-term survival. The aim of this scoping review was to provide a comprehensive report of the recent literature reporting the management of ROCC.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted of the Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases for studies published between 2000 and 2025. Searches were uploaded to the Covidence review tool and dual screened (abstract and full text) against prespecified inclusion criteria. Key data extraction points were: study characteristics, interventions used, patient and oncological descriptors, and outcomes reported. Data are reported descriptively as per PRISMA-ScR guidance.
resultsTwenty-seven studies were identified: 22 primary research studies and 5 systematic reviews. Primary research studies were predominantly retrospective cohorts (20), with nine single-centre studies. Emergency resection was the most common intervention (7528, 75.4%), ahead of a colonic stent as a BTS (2289, 22.9%) and defunctioning stoma as a BTS (114, 1.1%). Of note, the vast majority of patients treated with a stent were from a single paper. There were 76 different descriptors reported, with 61 reported in fewer than five studies. In all, 70 perioperative, 8 stent-specific, and 21 oncological outcomes were reported. The focus was on perioperative outcomes, with only two oncological outcomes reported in five or more studies. Of the five included systematic reviews, four compared emergency resection to BTS and reported favourable outcomes of the BTS approach.
conclusionCurrent available evidence is non-randomized and limited by retrospective study design. Although BTS appears favourable, studies are poorly powered, meaning the current evidence is insufficient to support BTS approaches.
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.