SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Textbook oncologic outcomes in colorectal cancer surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Severe Postoperative Complications (Clavien-Dindo Grades III-IV) After Left-Sided Colon Cancer Surgery: A Single-Centre Retrospective Cohort Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond Binary ICU Admission: Duration-Sensitive Evaluation and Patient-Level Reclassification of Textbook Outcome After Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Beyond Mortality: Textbook Outcome as a Novel Quality Metric in Cardiothoracic Surgical Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The concept of "textbook outcome" has been updated to encompass the principles of surgical oncology and the related outcomes [textbook oncologic outcome (TOO)]. This systematic review aims to synthesize the numerous definitions of TOO in the context of colorectal surgery. The goal is to promote the development of a definition that has universal recognition and worldwide acceptability, hence improving surgical quality standards and patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies that addressed TOO in colorectal cancer surgeries. The database search was conducted on 30 April 2024, and the primary study's quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: A total of 13 studies were included. Common TOO parameters included radical resection, lymph node (LN) yield ≥12, no Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, length of stay (75th percentile), no 30-day readmissions, and no 30-day mortality. Factors influencing TOO achievement included surgical risk, gender, tumor stage, and socioeconomic factors. Patients achieving TOO showed better long-term survival. Variability in TOO definitions highlighted the need for standardization. Conclusion: TOO is an effective indicator for evaluating the quality of colorectal cancer surgery. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of surgical outcomes, which helps in guiding patient decisions and measuring hospital performance. By standardizing the parameters of TOO, the consistency and quality of care across different institutions can be improved. We propose a unified definition of TOO for colorectal cancer surgery: radical resection, LN yield ≥12, no Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications, length of stay (75th percentile), no 30-day readmissions, and no 30-day mortality.
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.