The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Emergency presentation of colorectal cancer is associated with poor 5-year survival
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have reported that emergency presentation of colorectal cancer is associated with poor outcome. Many of these studies were small and most were not adjusted for case mix. The aim of this study was to establish, after adjusting for case mix, the magnitude of the differences in postoperative mortality and survival between patients undergoing elective surgery and those presenting as an emergency. Methods: Three thousand two hundred patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer between 1991 and 1994 in Scotland were studied. Five-year survival rates and adjusted hazard ratios were calculated. Results: Some 1603 (72·4 per cent) of 2214 elective patients had a potentially curative resection compared with 632 (64·1 per cent) of 986 patients who presented as an emergency (P < 0·001). Following curative resection, the postoperative mortality rate was 2·8 per cent after elective and 8·2 per cent after emergency operation (P < 0·001). Overall survival at 5 years was 57·5 per cent after elective and 39·1 per cent after emergency curative surgery (P < 0·001); cancer-specific survival at 5 years was 70·9 and 52·9 per cent respectively (P < 0·001). The adjusted hazard ratio for overall survival after emergency relative to elective surgery was 1·68 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·49 to 1·90; P < 0·001) and that for cancer-specific survival was 1·90 (95 per cent c.i. 1·62 to 2·22; P < 0·001). Conclusion: Following apparently curative resection for colorectal cancer, there was an excess of both cancer-related and intercurrent deaths in patients who presented as an emergency.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Low grade inflammation and coronary heart disease: prospective study and updated meta-analyses
Danesh, J. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7255.199 · Cited by 1,692
Cited by
Tan, C. J., Dasari, B. V. M., & Gardiner, K. (2012) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.8689 · Cited by 257
Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence
Zhou, Y., Abel, G. A., Hamilton, W., Pritchard-Jones, K., Gross, C. P., Walter, F. M., Renzi, C., Johnson, S., McPhail, S., Elliss-Brookes, L., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.155 · Cited by 214
Metadata
- Authors
- McArdle, C. S., & Hole, D. J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-03-22
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 605-609
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2095228410
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.