ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Quality improvement in exenteration for advanced pelvic malignancy: the role of a registry.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic exenteration, once regarded as an 'extreme option for hopeless cases', has evolved into a standard of care for selected patients with advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy. Parallel to technical and peri-operative advances, there has been a global shift towards structured quality improvement and registry-based outcome measurement. This paper outlines the historical evolution of exenterative surgery, the development of surgical quality registries, and their role in benchmarking performance. It highlights the success of international collaboratives such as PelvEx in standardising definitions and outcomes, and proposes a core dataset of key performance indicators (KPIs) relevant to exenterative surgery. These include oncological, peri-operative, and survivorship outcomes, supported by appropriate risk stratification. Establishing high-quality, prospectively maintained registries enables meaningful comparison between units, facilitates clinical governance, and strengthens advocacy for resources. Ultimately, registry-driven data are essential to refining surgical quality, optimising patient selection, and improving long-term survivorship in this complex patient cohort. This is particularly relevant with the variations in neo-adjuvant therapies.
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.