A Systematic Mapping Review of Core Outcome Reporting in Surgical Research for Oesophageal Cancer

Oesophageal carcinoma is a rising global health burden, with surgical resection and perioperative chemotherapy forming the cornerstone of curative treatment. However, uncertainty persists regarding the optimal surgical approach, partly due to heterogeneity in outcome reporting, which hinders data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. To address this, a core outcome set (COS) for oesophageal cancer surgery was developed through international consensus among clinicians and patients. This study systematically evaluates the uptake of these core outcomes in contemporary surgical research. A systematic review was conducted of randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies investigating oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer, published between 2010 and 2024. The reporting of ten COS-recommended outcomes was assessed across eligible studies. Fifty-eight studies involving 22 260 patients were included (39 cohort studies; 19 RCTs). No study reported all 10 core outcomes. The median number of core outcomes reported was 4 (interquartile range 3-5). The frequency of individual core outcome reporting was as follows: in-hospital mortality (86%), conduit necrosis/leak (81%), respiratory complications (79%), overall survival (30%), ability to eat and drink (44%), quality of life (26%), inoperability (23%), reflux symptoms (21%), severe nutritional effects (19%), and need for reintervention (16%). No improvement in core outcome reporting was observed over the study period. Promoting COS implementation and improving methodological rigour is essential to ensure that future research reflects the priorities of both clinicians and patients, and facilitates meaningful evidence synthesis.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Published
2026-01-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.70173
Primary Topic
Delphi Technique in Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Systematic Mapping Review of Core Outcome Reporting in Surgical Research for Oesophageal Cancer

Kerry Avery, Natalie Blencowe, Mr Bilal Alkhaffaf, Anie Naqvi et al.
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Delphi Technique in Research
article

A Systematic Mapping Review of Core Outcome Reporting in Surgical Research for Oesophageal Cancer

Kerry Avery, Natalie Blencowe, Mr Bilal Alkhaffaf, Anie Naqvi, Nadia Matias, Roukia Techache, Rhiannon Macefield, Jack Thomson
article en

Abstract

Oesophageal carcinoma is a rising global health burden, with surgical resection and perioperative chemotherapy forming the cornerstone of curative treatment. However, uncertainty persists regarding the optimal surgical approach, partly due to heterogeneity in outcome reporting, which hinders data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. To address this, a core outcome set (COS) for oesophageal cancer surgery was developed through international consensus among clinicians and patients. This study systematically evaluates the uptake of these core outcomes in contemporary surgical research. A systematic review was conducted of randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies investigating oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer, published between 2010 and 2024. The reporting of ten COS-recommended outcomes was assessed across eligible studies. Fifty-eight studies involving 22 260 patients were included (39 cohort studies; 19 RCTs). No study reported all 10 core outcomes. The median number of core outcomes reported was 4 (interquartile range 3-5). The frequency of individual core outcome reporting was as follows: in-hospital mortality (86%), conduit necrosis/leak (81%), respiratory complications (79%), overall survival (30%), ability to eat and drink (44%), quality of life (26%), inoperability (23%), reflux symptoms (21%), severe nutritional effects (19%), and need for reintervention (16%). No improvement in core outcome reporting was observed over the study period. Promoting COS implementation and improving methodological rigour is essential to ensure that future research reflects the priorities of both clinicians and patients, and facilitates meaningful evidence synthesis.

Journal of Surgical OncologyVol. 133(3)
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB), University of Manchester (GB), Salford Royal Hospital (GB), NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Delphi Technique in Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.