Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41502048›Full record

SynthesisJournal of surgical oncology2026

A Systematic Mapping Review of Core Outcome Reporting in Surgical Research for Oesophageal Cancer.

Nadia Matias, Anie Naqvi, Jack Thomson, Roukia Techache, Kerry Avery, Natalie Blencowe, Rhiannon Macefield, Bilal Alkhaffaf

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Nadia MatiasDepartment of Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance, Stott Lane, Salford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1113-1167
Anie NaqviDepartment of Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance, Stott Lane, Salford, UK.
Jack ThomsonDepartment of Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance, Stott Lane, Salford, UK.
Roukia TechacheDepartment of Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance, Stott Lane, Salford, UK.
Kerry AveryCentre for Surgical Research, and NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Natalie BlencoweCentre for Surgical Research, and NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rhiannon MacefieldCentre for Surgical Research, and NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bilal AlkhaffafDepartment of Oesophago-Gastric and Bariatric Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance, Stott Lane, Salford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oesophageal carcinoma is a rising global health burden, with surgical resection and perioperative chemotherapy forming the cornerstone of curative treatment. However, uncertainty persists regarding the optimal surgical approach, partly due to heterogeneity in outcome reporting, which hinders data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. To address this, a core outcome set (COS) for oesophageal cancer surgery was developed through international consensus among clinicians and patients. This study systematically evaluates the uptake of these core outcomes in contemporary surgical research. A systematic review was conducted of randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies investigating oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer, published between 2010 and 2024. The reporting of ten COS-recommended outcomes was assessed across eligible studies. Fifty-eight studies involving 22 260 patients were included (39 cohort studies; 19 RCTs). No study reported all 10 core outcomes. The median number of core outcomes reported was 4 (interquartile range 3-5). The frequency of individual core outcome reporting was as follows: in-hospital mortality (86%), conduit necrosis/leak (81%), respiratory complications (79%), overall survival (30%), ability to eat and drink (44%), quality of life (26%), inoperability (23%), reflux symptoms (21%), severe nutritional effects (19%), and need for reintervention (16%). No improvement in core outcome reporting was observed over the study period. Promoting COS implementation and improving methodological rigour is essential to ensure that future research reflects the priorities of both clinicians and patients, and facilitates meaningful evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyOutcome Assessment, Health CareHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topiccancercore outcomesoesophagealsurgical resection

Identifiers

PMID41502048
PMCPMC12989195

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.