SynthesisANZ journal of surgery2026
Surveillance After Pelvic Exenteration: A Systematic Review of Oncological and Functional Follow-Up.
Synthesis in ANZ journal of surgery, 2026. 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.
- Morbidity, Recurrence and Survival Following Pelvic Exenteration for Gynaecological Malignancies: A Retrospective, Single-Centre Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurveillance following cancer surgery with curative intent serves the purpose of permitting early detection of recurrent disease in addition to monitoring and management of post-resection functional sequelae. Although recommendations exist for most primary cancers, in the context of radical or re-operative surgery such as pelvic exenteration (PE), whether these strategies are appropriate is unclear. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the oncological and functional follow-up strategies after PE.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2000 and December 2024. Eligible studies reported long-term oncological and/or functional follow-up after PE. Studies including other surgical procedures, short-term (< 12 month) follow-up, non-English articles, and case reports were excluded. Data extracted included follow-up length, frequency, and investigation type. Risk of bias was assessed using the AGREE-II and ROBINS-I tools.
resultsForty-two studies were included, comprising 39 cohort studies and three non-original articles. Oncological follow-up, described in 28 studies, frequently included clinic visits every 3-4 months for the first 2-3 years, transitioning to annual reviews after 5 years. Modalities such as tumour markers, CT and MRI imaging, and colonoscopies varied widely. Functional follow-up was addressed in 19 studies, utilising validated instruments including the EORTC QLQ-C30 and SF-36. Most studies lacked standardisation, and no single article comprehensively addressed both oncological and functional aspects.
conclusionCurrent follow-up practices after PE exhibit significant heterogeneity, highlighting the need for standardised protocols. Future research should focus on appropriately sized prospective cohort studies and randomised trials to develop evidence-based guidelines tailored to the unique needs of this high-risk patient population.
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.