ArticleThe Journal of urology2010
How do you tell whether a change in surgical technique leads to a change in outcome?
Article in The Journal of urology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transitioning From Laparoscopic to Robotic Bariatric Surgery: A Surgeon-Centered Analytic Approach.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Experience of 5 years adjustable continence therapy (ProACT): the surgical learning curve and patient outcomes.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Paravertebral and erector spinae plane blocks decrease length of stay compared with local infiltration analgesia in autologous breast reconstruction.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of Replacing Fentanyl With Hydromorphone as the First-Line Postoperative Opioid Among Patients Undergoing Outpatient Cancer Surgery.Journal of perianesthesia nursing : official journal of the American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses · 2024Article
- The level of postoperative care influences mortality prediction by the POSPOM score: A retrospective cohort analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Systematic Approach to Discussing Active Surveillance with Patients with Low-risk Prostate Cancer.European urology · 2017Article
- Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy outcome data: how should surgeon's performance be reported? A retrospective learning curve analysis of two surgeons.Ecancermedicalscience · 2016Article
- Surgical learning curve for open radical prostatectomy: Is there an end to the learning curve?World journal of urology · 2015Article
- Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Journal of endourology · 2014Article
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
Abstract
purposeSurgeons routinely evaluate and modify their surgical technique to improve patient outcome. It is also common for surgeons to analyze results before and after a change in technique to determine whether the change led to better results. Simple comparison of results before and after surgical modification may be confounded by the surgical learning curve. We developed a statistical method applicable to analyzing before/after surgical studies. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe used simulation studies to compare different statistical analyses of before/after studies. We evaluated a simple 2-group comparison of results before and after the modification by the chi-square test and a novel bootstrap method that adjusts for the surgical learning curve.
resultsIn the presence of the learning curve a simple 2-group comparison almost always showed an ineffective surgical modification to be of benefit. When the surgical modification was harmful, leading to a 10% decrease in the success rate, 2-group comparison nonetheless showed a statistically significant improvement in outcome about 80% of the time. The bootstrap method had only moderate power but did not show that ineffective surgical modifications were beneficial more than would be expected by chance.
conclusionsSimplistic approaches to the analysis of before/after surgical studies may lead to grossly erroneous results under the surgical learning curve. A straightforward alternative statistical method allows investigators to separate the effects of the learning curve from those of the surgical modification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.