Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41291043›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2026

Development and application of quality assurance methods for interventions in randomised controlled trials of surgical oncology: the ROMIO study (a comparison of minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy).

ROMIO writing group, co-applicants and study group

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

ROMIO writing group
co-applicants and study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResults of RCTs are criticised because the quality assurance (QA) of surgical interventions is not considered. This is particularly true in cancer trials, because higher standards of surgery may confer more favourable outcomes. Although methods for surgical QA exist, it is unclear how to operationalise and report them in the context of pragmatic cancer trials. We describe the development and application of QA processes to an RCT comparing laparoscopically assisted (LAO) and open oesophagectomy (OO) in patients with localised oesophageal cancer.

methodsThree QA measures were developed in Phase 1 and tested for feasibility in Phase 2: (i) centre/surgeon entry criteria, (ii) agreement of key components of LAO/OO, and (iii)monitoring adherence to intervention protocols using CRFs and intra-operative photographs.

resultsAll centres met entry criteria and 30/31 Phase 2 surgeons submitted two videos. Although photos were received for 88.8% of procedures, only 44(14.9%) were complete. Adherence to key intervention components (abdominal/thoracic nodal clearance, hiatal dissection) was consistently reported as better in CRFs than that observed in the intra-operative photographs.

conclusionEmbedding QA measures into pragmatic surgical cancer RCTs is feasible, and provides important data about the quality of interventions. Methods to streamline data collection and analyses are needed prior to widespread use.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyQuality Assurance, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical OncologyHumansLaparoscopyMinimally Invasive Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID41291043
PMCPMC12852800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.