ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2008
Comparison of administrative data with the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) colorectal cancer database.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2012Pooled it
- Trial
- Article
- Routinely collected data and patient-centred research in anaesthesia and peri-operative care: a narrative review.Anaesthesia · 2021Review
- Obesity surgery and risk of colorectal and other obesity-related cancers: An English population-based cohort study.Cancer epidemiology · 2018Observational
- Surgical Quality in Rectal Cancer Management: What Can Be Achieved by a Voluntary Observational Study?Gastroenterology research and practice · 2018Article
- Validation of the Hospital Episode Statistics Outpatient Dataset in England.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Article
- Surgical Unit volume and 30-day reoperation rate following primary resection for colorectal cancer in the Veneto Region (Italy).Techniques in coloproctology · 2016Article
- Variations and inter-relationship in outcome from emergency admissions in England: a retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics from 2005-2010.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- The impact of shortened postgraduate surgical training on colorectal cancer outcome.International journal of colorectal disease · 2014Article
- Epidemiological study of provision of cholecystectomy in England from 2000 to 2009: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
- Variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery in England as an indicator of surgical performance: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Article
- The National Bowel Cancer Audit Project: what do trusts think of the National Bowel Cancer Audit and how can it be improved?Techniques in coloproctology · 2011Article
- Article
- Social variations in access to hospital care for patients with colorectal, breast, and lung cancer between 1999 and 2006: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared case volume and operative mortality from surgery for colorectal cancer in England derived from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) with the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) colorectal cancer database. MATERIALS AND
methodsData extracted from HES records for 2001-2002 for patients undergoing one of seven procedures for colorectal cancer were compared with those from the ACPGBI database. The primary endpoint was a 30-day post-operative mortality.
results16,346 patients from HES were compared with 7,635 from the ACPGBI database. For trusts with patients in both databases, HES reported 12% more procedures than ACPGBI (7,516 vs 6,617). Records of anterior resection revealed reasonable agreement between HES and the ACPGBI databases (difference, 2%). By trust, the overall correlation between the reported procedures was 0.660. Reported crude mortality was inconsistent between the databases, with mortality from abdominoperineal excision of rectum showing the poorest correlation (r = 0.253).
conclusionsOverall, agreement between reported caseload and mortality was reasonable at a national, but not hospital, level. Investigation of differences between the two databases at unit level may help to detect under reporting of cases. The combination of data from both sources could be used to develop an enhanced system for monitoring outcomes from colorectal surgery in England.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17960396What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.