SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2026
The "Textbook Outcome" Isn't Textbook: Significant Variation in "Textbook Outcome" Definitions following a Systematic Review of the Surgical Oncology Literature.
Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Binary ICU Admission: Duration-Sensitive Evaluation and Patient-Level Reclassification of Textbook Outcome After Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Need for a Textbook Outcome in Gastric Surgery (TOGS) Specific for Gastric Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Writing the Textbook on "Textbook Outcomes" in Surgical Oncology.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background"Textbook outcome" is an increasingly utilized composite metric used to assess postoperative outcomes in surgical oncology. Variability in "textbook outcome" definitions hampers its reliability and comparability. This systematic review investigates the heterogeneity in "textbook outcome" definitions and advocates for standardization. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed was systematically searched for English language studies published between 2018 and 2023 reporting "textbook outcome" in cancer surgeries. Data on "textbook outcome" definitions and component parameters, including mortality, complications, hospital stay, and readmission was independently extracted. These results were screened for exclusion and independently reviewed by the research team in a standardized fashion. A secondary analysis was performed to assess discrepancies across reviewers with reconciliation of review variation. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze variability across studies.
resultsA total of 86 papers were included, encompassing 116 disease-specific studies. No component was included in all studies, mortality (88.8%), complications (90.5%), readmission (93.1%), and length of stay (89.7%) were most commonly included. Component definitions varied widely: mortality was variably defined as in-hospital, 30-day, or 90-day mortality, while complications ranged from Clavien-Dindo graded to undefined. Timeframes and thresholds for metrics such as readmission and length of stay also varied widely. Many studies lacked clarity, requiring inference to deduce "textbook outcome" definitions, highlighting a need for standardized reporting.
conclusionsDespite its potential as a comprehensive quality indicator, "textbook outcome" definitions currently suffer from significant definitional heterogeneity. Standardized, procedure specific "textbook outcome" definitions and reporting guidelines are needed to improve its interpretability, comparability, and clinical applicability.
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.