A systematic review and in‐depth analysis of outcome reporting in early phase studies of colorectal cancer surgical innovation

Christin Hoffmann · Rhiannon C Macefield · Jane M. Blazeby · KERRY N. L. AVERY · Shelley Potter · Angus McNair

11 citations0/0 files storedColorectal Disease

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

AIM: Early phase studies are essential to evaluate new technologies prior to randomized evaluation. Evaluation is limited, however, by inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes. This study examines outcome reporting in studies of innovative colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Systematic searches identified studies of invasive procedures treating primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Included were a random sample of studies which authors reported as 'new' or 'modified'. Outcomes were extracted verbatim and categorized using an existing framework of 32 domains relevant to early phase studies. Outcomes were classified as 'measured' (where there was an explicit statement to that effect or evidence that data collection had occurred) or 'mentioned but not measured' (where outcomes were discussed but data collection was not evident). Patterns of identified outcomes are described. RESULTS: Of 8373 records, 816 were potentially eligible. Full-text review of a random sample of 218 studies identified 51 for inclusion of which 34 (66%) were 'new' and 17 (33%) were 'modified'. Some 2073 outcomes were identified, and all mapped to domains. 'Anticipated disadvantages' were most frequently identified [660 (32%) outcomes identified across 50 (98%) studies]. No domain was represented in all studies. Under half (944, 46%) of outcomes were 'measured'. 'Surgeon's/operator's experience of the innovation' was more frequently 'mentioned but not measured' [207 (18%) outcomes across 46 (90%) studies] than 'measured' [17 (2%) outcomes, 11 (22%) studies]. CONCLUSION: There is outcome reporting heterogeneity in studies of early phase colorectal cancer surgery. The adoption of core outcome sets may help to resolve these inconsistencies and enable efficient evaluation of surgical innovations.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

References

2016PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence 2012The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews 2009Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation 2019What is an invasive procedure? A definition to inform study design, evidence synthesis and research tracking 2013A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.