Purpose: Despite extensive evidence supporting synoptic reporting in adult surgical oncology, the pediatric surgical oncology evidence base remains sparse, institution-dependent, and implementation-limited, resulting in a critical translational gap. This systematic review evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of synoptic operative reports (SR) in improving documentation completeness in pediatric oncology surgery compared with traditional narrative reports (NR). Methods: Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating operative report completeness in pediatric oncology surgery were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Of 1926 screened records, 11 articles underwent full-text review, and 4 studies met inclusion criteria. Results: The four included studies analyzed 341 operative reports (217 NRs and 124 SRs). Documentation completeness was the primary outcome. Across all evaluated intraoperative elements, synoptic reports were associated with approximately tenfold higher odds of complete documentation compared with narrative reports (pooled OR for NR vs. SR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.07–0.14; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Synoptic reporting consistently improves the completeness of pediatric oncologic operative documentation compared with narrative formats; however, adoption in pediatric surgical oncology remains limited. Multicenter and implementation-focused research is needed to assess scalability, integration within electronic medical record (EMR) systems, and the impact of synoptic reporting on communication and clinical decision-making.
Unal et al. (2026) studied this question.