Standards of Outcome Reporting in Surgical Oncology: A Case Study in Esophageal Cancer
- 21 July 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Annals of Surgical Oncology
- Vol. 19 (13) , 4012-4018
- https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2497-x
Abstract
Multimodal strategies before surgery are often used to improve outcomes, but disease progression (precluding surgical resection) and inoperability at planned surgery still occur following neoadjuvant treatment. The standards of reporting of these outcomes have not previously been considered. This study examined reporting of rates of progression to surgical resection and inoperability at planned surgery following neoadjuvant treatment in surgical oncology, using esophageal cancer as a case study.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- The Value of Lesser-Impact-Factor Surgical Journals As a Source of Negative and Inconclusive Outcomes ReportingAnnals of Surgery, 2011
- Open Versus Minimally Invasive EsophagectomyAnnals of Surgery, 2010
- Bladder Cancer: Narrowing the Gap Between Evidence and PracticeJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- A worldwide approach to the TNM staging system: Collaborative efforts of the AJCC and UICCJournal of Surgical Oncology, 2009
- Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviewsTrials, 2007
- OMERACT: An international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatologyTrials, 2007
- An Embarrassment of Riches: Neoadjuvant Therapy of Rectal CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- How can doctors communicate information about risk more effectively?BMJ, 2003
- Trends in survival for both histologic types of esophageal cancer in U.S. surveillance, epidemiology and end results areasInternational Journal of Cancer, 2003