ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Bridging Operative Standards to Clinical Practice: A Case Comparison of Synoptic Operative Report Implementation in Breast Cancer Surgery.
Article in Annals 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2020, the Commission on Cancer (CoC) announced a new accreditation standard requiring use of synoptic operative reporting (SOR) to improve the proportion of patients with breast cancer receiving guideline concordant care. We conducted a case-comparison of four CoC accredited sites' implementation of breast SOR to identify ways in which the CoC could address common implementation challenges.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews from December 2021 to May 2022 with 31 stakeholders purposefully sampled from two NCI-Designated Cancer Programs and two Comprehensive Community Cancer Programs in the US. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide thematic analysis and identify similarities and differences between cases.
resultsAll cases expressed that the CoC was the driver for SOR implementation, had concerns about complexity and costs, and noted that the cancer liaison physician and information technology are critical during implementation. Sites noted that surgeons who dictate had challenges changing workflows to accommodate SORs. All sites believed standardization and data collection via SORs were beneficial but not essential, leading to low tension for change. Informatics support and clinician expertise with information technology varied by site, affecting the ability to translate clinical requirements for SOR integration.
conclusionsCancer liaison physicians were a critical champion across all settings, underscoring the importance of the CoC's continued engagement with this role. To reduce cost and complexity of developing SORs and account for varying clinical informatics knowledge and resources, the CoC should consider providing additional tailored technical support.
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.