Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of the introduction and training of total mesorectal excision on recurrence and survival in rectal cancer in The Netherlands

Open access
Kapiteijn, E, Putter, H, van de Velde, C J H·2002·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Local control and survival following surgical treatment of rectal cancer have been improved by the introduction of total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this study was to determine the nationwide impact of the introduction and training of TME on recurrence and survival in rectal cancer. Methods: Short- and long-term outcomes of a recently published trial of rectal cancer surgery (TME trial) were compared with results from an older trial (cancer recurrence and blood transfusion (CRAB) trial), in which conventional surgery was performed without quality control. Only patients who were operated on with curative intent and who did not receive neoadjuvant radiotherapy were studied. Differences in clinicopathological characteristics were corrected for by multivariate analysis. To ensure valid comparisons, only events that occurred within 2 years of operation were analysed with regard to long-term outcome. Results: In the univariate analysis, a higher clinical anastomotic leak rate was found in patients following low anterior resection in the TME trial (P = 0·046), but this association was not significant in the multivariate analysis. The local recurrence rate decreased from 16 per cent in the CRAB trial to 9 per cent in the TME trial, and type of operation (conventional (CRAB trial) versus TME (TME trial)) was an independent predictor of local recurrence (P = 0·002). Type of operation was also an independent predictor of overall survival (P = 0·019); there was a higher survival rate in the TME trial. Conclusion: The introduction and training of TME has led to improved long-term outcome of patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02196.x

Cites

16 of 16 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 16 references

Cited by

See all 481

Metadata

Authors
Kapiteijn, E., Putter, H., & van de Velde, C. J. H.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2002-09
Volume
89
Issue
9
Pages
1142-1149
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2012613876
Cited by
481
References
16
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Impact of the introduction and training of total mesorectal excision on recurrence and survival in rectal cancer in The Netherlands. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02196.x
The paper
Kapiteijn, E., Putter, H., & van de Velde, C. J. H. (2002). Impact of the introduction and training of total mesorectal excision on recurrence and survival in rectal cancer in The Netherlands. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02196.x

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.