ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Expert Consensus on Self-Reported Physical, Nutritional, and Psychological Screening Tools for Prehabilitation in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: An International Delphi Study.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- ASO Author Reflections: The Right Care, for the Right Patient, at the Right Time: Development of the PREdiCT Screening Tool for Prehabilitation in Cancer Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrehabilitation can decrease postoperative complications and enhance recovery for people with gastrointestinal cancer. Preoperative screening may identify individuals at highest risk of poor postoperative outcomes, enabling targeted and tailored interventions. Despite this, optimal tools for screening patients before surgery remain unclear. This Delphi study sought to achieve international consensus on appropriate screening tools to identify patients at increased risk of postoperative complications before undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery.
methodsA three-round iterative Delphi survey was distributed to a global multidisciplinary network of prehabilitation experts. Respondents were asked to rate screening tools, identified through a scoping review, on a 5-point Likert scale based on the appropriateness of their use for adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The screening tools were categorized as evaluating either physical, nutritional, or psychological domains. A consensus criterion was applied in the second and third rounds, which required ≥ 70% of respondents to rate a given tool as ≥ 4 for it to proceed to future rounds.
resultsOverall, 308 self-nominated prehabilitation experts rated the screening tools. Of 26 screening tools (including 9 physical, 7 nutritional, and 10 psychological), consensus was achieved for three physical, three nutritional, and four psychological tools.
conclusionBased on Delphi consensus of global prehabilitation experts, 10 self-reported screening tools reached consensus. Given that tool selection was informed by Delphi consensus rather than empirical validation, prospective studies are necessary to assess whether these instruments accurately stratify surgical risk and identify candidates most likely to benefit from prehabilitation.
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.