ArticleSurgery open science2026
Patient perspective on pre-operative communication; a post-operative cross-sectional survey of patients with gastro-intestinal malignancy.
Article in Surgery open science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Undergoing major cancer surgery is an important decision for patients. This study assessed the effectiveness of decision-making following colorectal and oesophageal cancer surgery. Methods: Patients who had undergone colorectal and oesophageal cancer surgery in two UK centres over two years were identified. Validated patient reported outcomes (PROs) were collected by cross sectional survey including perceived confidence in decision-making and effectiveness of risk communication (COMRADE scale), decision regret (Decisional Conflict Score; DCS), and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-PAL15). Uni-variable linear regression was used to explore the relationship between PRO scores and clinical and sociodemographic variables. Results: Some 143/244 (58%) patients returned the questionnaire. Overall, decision regret was low (median 7.81, range 0-23.4), and perceived confidence in decision-making and effectiveness of risk communication was good (median 95 (75-100) and 85 (70-100) respectively). Higher education level was associated with reduced regret (-0.7; CI -1.2 to -0.1; Conclusion: Patients perceived decision-making to be effective in this study, but those with adverse outcomes may benefit from further 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.