ReviewAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2026
Best evidence summary for post-discharge follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer and an ostomy.
Review in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To summarize the best available evidence on post-discharge follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer and an ostomy. Methods: Following the 6S evidence hierarchy, a systematic search was performed from July 1, 2015, to January 1, 2026, covering major academic databases, professional society websites, and clinical decision support tools. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies and extracted the relevant evidence, respectively. Results: A total of 15 articles were included, comprising 4 guidelines, 2 systematic reviews, 2 meta-analyses, 1 clinical decision tool, 1 expert consensus, 2 expert opinions, and 3 evidence summaries. The overall methodological quality of the included literature was high. A total of 12 best-evidence recommendations were identified and synthesized across five key domains: follow-up providers, follow-up methods, follow-up frequency, follow-up content, and complication prevention and management. Among these, the majority of recommendations were supported by Level 1 or Level 2 evidence, with 8 recommendations rated as Grade A and 4 as Grade B based on the JBI evidence pre-grading system. Conclusions: This review identified 12 evidence-based recommendations for post-discharge follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer and an ostomy. The findings suggest that health care providers should develop appropriate follow-up approaches based on evidence translation while considering individual patient characteristics, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the quality of patient care. Systematic review registration: This study was registered in the Fudan University Centre for Evidence-based Nursing (Registration No. ES20231600).
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.