SynthesisANZ journal of surgery2025
Remote Follow-Up After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in ANZ journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Remote Follow-Up After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A post-discharge homecare journey map for patients with colorectal cancer living with a permanent stoma: A qualitative study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- An international multidisciplinary consensus statement on laparoscopic liver biopsy.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Article
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
backgroundRemote consultations are increasingly being utilized in colorectal cancer follow-up, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, with benefits continuing beyond the pandemic. It is not clear how remote modalities affect patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL) and safety of colorectal cancer follow-up.
objectivesTo investigate the impact of remote follow-up on patient satisfaction, QoL, clinician satisfaction, adherence to investigations, readmission rates, recurrence rates, and mortality rates for colorectal cancer.
methodsA systematic review was performed using three electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with grey literature. Eligible studies included remote techniques such as telephone, video, or patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) compared with standard face-to-face follow-up in patients who have undergone colorectal cancer resection. Two independent reviewers screened studies and assessed the risk of bias.
resultsA total of 4417 records were identified with seven studies included. Six studies showed high levels of patient satisfaction in remote follow-up, with two studies showing significantly better satisfaction than standard follow-up. Two studies evaluated QoL, with one showing significantly better QoL in the remote follow-up group than the standard, and the other study showing comparable levels. Safety outcomes were minimally reported, but there were no adverse outcomes. There was at least moderate risk of bias in the four nonrandomized interventions due to confounding from patient selection into intervention groups.
conclusionsRemote follow-up in colorectal cancer appears to be comparable to face-to-face follow-up with high levels of patient satisfaction and QoL. While adherence to follow-up investigations was not compromised, the evidence on oncological impact is limited, and further studies on mortality and recurrence rates are required to ensure overall safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.