Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes

The Beyond TME Collaborative, Ali, S Mohammed, Antoniou, Anthony, Beynon, John, Bhangu, Aneel, Bose, Pradeep, Boyle, Kirsten, Branagan, Graham, Brown, Gina, Burling, David, Chang, George J, Clark, Susan K, Colquhoun, Patrick, Crane, Christopher H, Darzi, Ara, Das, Prajnan, de Wilt, Johannes H W, Delaney, Conor P, Desai, Anant, Davies, Mark, Dietz, David, Dozois, Eric J, Duff, Michael, Dziki, Adam, Fitzgerald, J Edward, Frizelle, Frank A, George, Bruce, George, Mark L, Georgiou, Panagiotis, Glynne-Jones, Rob, Goldin, Robert D, Gupta, Arun, Harji, Deena, Harris, Dean A, Hawkins, Maria, Heriot, Alexander G, Holm, Torbjörn, Hompes, Roel, Jeys, Lee, Jenkins, John T, Kiran, Ravi P, Koh, Cherry E, Laurberg, Soren, Law, Wai L, Liberman, A Sender, Marshall, Michele, McArthur, David R, Mirnezami, Alex H, Moran, Brendan, Mortenson, Neil, Myers, Eddie, Nicholls, R John, O'Connell, P Ronan, O'Dwyer, Sarah T, Oliver, Alex, Pallan, Arvind, Patel, Prashant, Patel, Uday B, Radley, Simon, Ramsey, Kelvin W D, Rasmussen, Peter C, Richard, Carole, Rutten, Harm J T, Sagar, Peter, Sebag-Montefiore, David, Solomon, Michael J, Stocchi, Luca, Swallow, Carol J, Tait, Diana, Tan, Emile, Tekkis, Paris P, van As, Nicholas, Vuong, Te, Wiggers, Theo, Wilson, Malcolm, Winter, Desmond, Woodhouse, Christopher·2013·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Consensus abstract: Background: The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods: Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results: The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion: The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.9192_1

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 89 references

Metadata

Authors
Collaborative, T. B. T., Ali, S. M., Antoniou, A., Beynon, J., Bhangu, A., Bose, P., Boyle, K., Branagan, G., Brown, G., Burling, D., Chang, G. J., Clark, S. K., Colquhoun, P., Crane, C. H., Darzi, A., Das, P., de Wilt, J. H. W., Delaney, C. P., Desai, A., Davies, M., Dietz, D., Dozois, E. J., Duff, M., Dziki, A., Fitzgerald, J. E., Frizelle, F. A., George, B., George, M. L., Georgiou, P., Glynne-Jones, R., Goldin, R. D., Gupta, A., Harji, D., Harris, D. A., Hawkins, M., Heriot, A. G., Holm, T., Hompes, R., Jeys, L., Jenkins, J. T., Kiran, R. P., Koh, C. E., Laurberg, S., Law, W. L., Liberman, A. S., Marshall, M., McArthur, D. R., Mirnezami, A. H., Moran, B., Mortenson, N., Myers, E., Nicholls, R. J., O'Connell, P. R., O'Dwyer, S. T., Oliver, A., Pallan, A., Patel, P., Patel, U. B., Radley, S., Ramsey, K. W. D., Rasmussen, P. C., Richard, C., Rutten, H. J. T., Sagar, P., Sebag-Montefiore, D., Solomon, M. J., Stocchi, L., Swallow, C. J., Tait, D., Tan, E., Tekkis, P. P., van As, N., Vuong, T., Wiggers, T., Wilson, M., Winter, D., & Woodhouse, C.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2013-06-21
Volume
100
Issue
8
Pages
E1-E33
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W1830195387
Cited by
259
References
89
FWCI
10.28
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.9192_1
The paper
Collaborative, T. B. T., Ali, S. M., Antoniou, A., Beynon, J., Bhangu, A., Bose, P., Boyle, K., Branagan, G., Brown, G., Burling, D., Chang, G. J., Clark, S. K., Colquhoun, P., Crane, C. H., Darzi, A., Das, P., de Wilt, J. H. W., Delaney, C. P., Desai, A., . . . Woodhouse, C. (2013). Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9192_1

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.