Premium
A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery
Author(s) -
Whistance R. N.,
Forsythe R. O.,
McNair A. G. K.,
Brookes S. T.,
Avery K. N. L.,
Pullyblank A. M.,
Sylvester P. A.,
Jayne D. G.,
Jones J. E.,
Brown J.,
Coleman M. G.,
Dutton S. J.,
Hackett R.,
Huxtable R.,
Kennedy R. H.,
Morton D.,
Oliver A.,
Russell A.,
Thomas M. G.,
Blazeby J. M.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
colorectal disease
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.029
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1463-1318
pISSN - 1462-8910
DOI - 10.1111/codi.12378
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , medline , outcome (game theory) , colorectal cancer , systematic review , colorectal surgery , surgery , general surgery , cancer , abdominal surgery , mathematics , mathematical economics , law , political science
Aim Evaluation of surgery for colorectal cancer ( CRC ) is necessary to inform clinical decision‐making and healthcare policy. The standards of outcome reporting after CRC surgery have not previously been considered. Method Systematic literature searches identified randomized and nonrandomized prospective studies reporting clinical outcomes of CRC surgery. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorized into broad groups (outcome domains) and examined for a definition (an appropriate textual explanation or a supporting citation). Outcome reporting was considered inconsistent if results of the outcome specified in the methods were not reported. Outcome reporting was compared between randomized and nonrandomized studies. Results Of 5644 abstracts, 194 articles (34 randomized and 160 nonrandomized studies) were included reporting 766 different clinical outcomes, categorized into seven domains. A mean of 14 ± 8 individual outcomes were reported per study. ‘Anastomotic leak’, ‘overall survival’ and ‘wound infection’ were the three most frequently reported outcomes in 72, 60 and 44 (37.1%, 30.9% and 22.7%) studies, respectively, and no single outcome was reported in every publication. Outcome definitions were significantly more often provided in randomized studies than in nonrandomized studies (19.0% vs 14.9%, P = 0.015). One‐hundred and twenty‐seven (65.5%) papers reported results of all outcomes specified in the methods (randomized studies, n = 21, 61.5%; nonrandomized studies, n = 106, 66.2%; P = 0.617). Conclusion Outcome reporting in CRC surgery lacks consistency and method. Improved standards of outcome measurement are recommended to permit data synthesis and transparent cross‐study comparisons.