| Title |
Preoperative localization of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-016-5236-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sergio A. Acuna, Maryam Elmi, Prakesh S. Shah, Natalie G. Coburn, Fayez A. Quereshy |
| Abstract |
Preoperative colorectal tumor localization is crucial for appropriate resection and treatment planning. As the localization accuracy of conventional colonoscopy is considered to be low, several localization techniques have been developed. We systematically reviewed the tumor localization error rates of several preoperative endoscopic techniques and synthesized information on risk factors for localization errors and procedure-related adverse events. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they reported tumor localization errors in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing resection with curative intent. Using random-effects models, pooled incidence of tumor localization errors were derived for conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopic tattooing. Due to the lack of comparative studies, a direct comparison of the pooled estimates was performed. Procedure-related adverse events, risk factors for localization errors, and the localization outcomes of other techniques such as colonoscopic clip placement, radioguided occult colonic lesion identification, and the use of magnetic endoscope imaging were also synthesized. A total of 38 non-randomized controlled and observational studies were included in this review (2578 patients underwent conventional colonoscopy and 643 colonoscopic tattooing). The pooled incidence of localization errors with conventional colonoscopy was 15.4 % (95 % CI 12.0-18.7), whereas that of colonoscopic tattooing was 9.5 % (95 % CI 5.7-13.3), mean difference 5.9 % (95 % CI 0.65-11.14, p = 0.03). Adverse events secondary to tattooing were infrequent, and most were cases of ink spillage. Limited information was available for other localization techniques. Conventional colonoscopy has a higher incidence of localization error compared to colonoscopic tattooing for localization of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopic tattooing is safe and leads to fewer tumor localization errors. Given the widespread adoption of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer, routine colonoscopic tattooing should be adopted. However, studies directly comparing different localization techniques are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 25% |
| Colombia | 1 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 56% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,490,452
of 25,603,577 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,089
of 6,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,552
of 329,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#35
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,603,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,920 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.