ArticleBJS open2026
Evaluating quality of colorectal cancer surgery across elective and emergency health systems: secondary analysis of prospective cohort studies in 95 countries.
Article in BJS open, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery recommended that access to and the quality of surgical care be improved. This study aimed to understand differences in surgical quality between emergency and elective resection among patients with potentially curative colorectal cancer.
methodsThis preplanned secondary analysis included patients undergoing only curative-intent surgery for colorectal cancer from three contemporary global prospective cohort studies (GlobalSurg-3, 5506 patients; CovidSurg-Cancer, 6719 patients; APOLLO, 876 patients) registered from 2018 to 2023. Hierarchical multilevel logistic regression models quantified associations between the urgency of surgery (elective versus emergency) and surgical quality, measured by margin-positive resection, adjusting for patient, disease, and health system factors. Bootstrap multivariable simulations evaluated effect modification by country income level, cancer stage, and location.
resultsOf the 45 699 patients registered, 13 101 across 95 countries were included in this analysis. Overall, 678 patients (5.4%) had margin-positive resections, with higher rates in the emergency than elective surgery group (13.7 versus 4.5%; P < 0.0001). In adjusted multilevel models, emergency surgery was associated with increased odds of margin-positive resections (adjusted odds ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 1.86 to 3.22), consistent across all country income groups and robust to alternative health system indicators. Bootstrap-derived absolute risk differences revealed the greatest disparities in patients with stage III-IV rectal cancers, with absolute differences of 12.6% (95% c.i. 10.2 to 15.7) in high-income countries, 19.0% (95% c.i. 13.6 to 23.9) in upper middle-income countries, and 14.1% (95% c.i. 10.9 to 16.5) in lower middle- and low-income countries. Variance decomposition demonstrated that hospital- and country-level factors accounted for 76% of the explained variation in surgical quality.
conclusionEmergency surgery was associated with a two- to threefold increase in the risk of margin-positive resections globally, independent of resource availability, highlighting a neglected area of global surgical practice. These findings challenge the assumption that poorer outcomes after emergency surgery are due to advanced disease stage. For patients presenting as an emergency with potentially curative resection, enhanced decision-making around resectability, ensuring specialist surgeon availability, and developing bridge-to-surgery pathways represent immediate, low-cost strategies to improve global cancer outcomes.
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.