Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 923

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study

Open access
MERCURY Study Group·2006·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of preoperative staging of rectal cancer with magnetic resonance imaging to predict surgical circumferential resection margins. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of rectal cancers treated by colorectal multidisciplinary teams between January 2002 and October 2003. SETTING: 11 colorectal units in four European countries. PARTICIPANTS: 408 consecutive patients presenting with all stages of rectal cancer and undergoing magnetic resonance imaging before total mesorectal excision surgery and histopathological assessment of the surgical specimen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting a curative resection based on the histological yardstick of presence or absence of tumour at the margins of the specimen. RESULTS: 354 of the 408 patients had a clear circumferential resection margin (87%, 95% confidence interval 83% to 90%). Specificity for prediction of a clear margin by magnetic resonance imaging was 92% (327/354, 90% to 95%). High resolution scans were technically satisfactory in 93% (379/408). Surgical specimens were histopathologically graded as complete or moderate in 80% (328/408), and the median lymph node harvest was 12 (range 0-49). Magnetic resonance imaging predicted clear margins in 349 patients. At surgery 327 had clear margins (94%, 91% to 96%). CONCLUSION: High resolution magnetic resonance imaging accurately predicts whether the surgical resection margins will be clear or affected by tumour. This technique can be reproduced accurately in multiple centres to predict curative resection and warns the multidisciplinary team of potential failure of surgery, thus enabling selection of patients for preoperative treatment.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.38937.646400.55

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 923

Metadata

Authors
MERCURY Study Group
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-09-19
Volume
333
Issue
7572
Pages
779
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W60202019
Cited by
923
References
3
FWCI
18.60
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: Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38937.646400.55
The paper
MERCURY Study Group. (2006). Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38937.646400.55

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.