ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Accuracy of Colonoscopy, Computed Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for the Preoperative Localization of Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- A Compositionally Tunable Micelle Platform for Integrated Photoacoustic Imaging, Direct Visual Guidance, and Photothermal Therapy of Solid Tumors.ACS applied nano materials · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWith the increasing use of laparoscopic and robotic approaches, accurate preoperative localization of colorectal cancer (CRC) is crucial for surgical planning. The present study aimed to compare the accuracy of colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for preoperative tumor localization in patients diagnosed with CRC.
methodsThis single-center prospective study evaluated the accuracy of colonoscopy, CT, and MRI for rectal cancer as tools for preoperative tumor localization. Information from preoperative investigations was recorded prospectively and compared with intraoperative findings. All colonic segments were included.
resultsColonoscopy was the most accurate method, with an overall accuracy of 82.4%. However, it was less effective in the hepatic and splenic flexures, with failure rates of 88% and 100%, respectively. CT demonstrated an overall accuracy of 57%, which improved to 74% for visible lesions. MRI was highly accurate for localizing rectal cancers.
conclusionsColonoscopy remains the gold standard for preoperative tumor localization despite its limitations in specific colonic segments. CT offers complementary information, but it was less accurate overall. MRI was a valuable tool for detecting rectal cancer. Future research should focus on improving localization methods, particularly in anatomically challenging areas.
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.