ArticleBJS open2026
Video-based assessment tool for workflow analysis in minimally invasive colorectal surgery: expert consensus-based development and multicentre validation of ColoWorkflow.
Article in BJS open, 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.
- Editorial: Advances in proctology and colorectal surgery, volume II.Frontiers in surgery · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive colorectal surgery is characterized by significant procedural variability, a difficult learning curve, and complications that affect patient outcomes. Video-based assessment offers an opportunity to generate data-driven insights to reduce variability, optimize training, and improve surgical performance. This mixed-methods study aimed to develop and validate a video-based assessment tool for workflow analysis across minimally invasive colorectal procedures.
methodsAn international steering committee panel of seven members coordinated a three-round modified Delphi process. Experts in colorectal surgery and video-based assessment were invited to reach consensus (≥ 70% agreement) on the phases and steps that describe workflows across colorectal surgery procedural videos. The resulting framework informed the development of ColoWorkflow. Four independent raters then applied ColoWorkflow to a multicentre video data set of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures. Applicability and inter-rater reliability were evaluated.
resultsOf 66 invited experts, 41 (62%) from 11 countries completed round 1, 40 (98%) completed round 2, 20 attended the final online consensus meeting, and all (40 of 40) approved the final workflow descriptors. Consensus was achieved on nine procedure-agnostic phases (port placement and abdomen exploration; vascular dissection and ligation, mesocolon/mesorectum dissection, additional lymphadenectomy; colon and/or rectum mobilization; colorectal transection; anastomosis; completion of operation; preplanned additional procedures; unplanned procedures; extracorporeal procedures) and 34 procedure-specific steps that describe colorectal surgery workflows. ColoWorkflow was developed and applied to 54 colorectal surgery videos (left and right hemicolectomies, sigmoid and rectosigmoid resections, and total proctocolectomies) from five centres in four countries. The tool demonstrated broad applicability, as all phase and step labels, except one, were represented in at least one video. Inter-rater reliability was moderate, with a mean Cohen's κ value of 0.72 for phases and 0.67 for steps. Most discrepancies arose at phase transitions and step boundary definitions.
conclusionBased on this preliminary work, ColoWorkflow is a promising tool for workflow analysis across minimally invasive colorectal procedures. Its adoption may help standardize training, accelerate competency acquisition, and advance data-informed surgical quality improvement.
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.