A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery

R. N. Whistance, R. O. Forsythe, A. G K Mcnair, S. T. Brookes, K. N L Avery, A. M. Pullyblank, P. A. Sylvester, D. G. Jayne, J. E. Jones, J. Brown, M. G. Coleman, S. J. Dutton, R. Hackett, R. Huxtable, R. H. Kennedy, D. Morton, A. Oliver, A. Russell, M. G. Thomas, J. M. Blazeby*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalColorectal Disease
Volume15
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2013

Structured keywords

  • Centre for Surgical Research

Keywords

  • Colorectal cancer
  • Outcome reporting
  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this