Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21846714›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011

Variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery in England as an indicator of surgical performance: retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics.

Elaine M Burns, Alex Bottle, Paul Aylin, Ara Darzi, R John Nicholls, Omar Faiz

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. What is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on outcomes in rectal cancer surgery?Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2023
    Article
  10. Predicting major complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hysterectomy for benign indications.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Heuristics and bias in rectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elaine M BurnsDepartment of Surgery, Imperial College, St Mary's Hospital, London W21NY, UK.
Alex Bottle
Paul Aylin
Ara Darzi
R John Nicholls
Omar Faiz
St Mary's Hospital · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe national reoperation rates after elective and emergency colorectal resection and to assess the feasibility of using reoperation as a quality indicator derived from routinely collected data in England.

designRetrospective observational study of Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data.

settingHES dataset, an administrative dataset covering the entire English National Health Service.

participantsAll patients undergoing a primary colorectal resection in England between 2000 and 2008.

main outcome measuresReoperation after colorectal resection, defined as any reoperation for an intra-abdominal procedure or wound complication within 28 days of surgery on the index or subsequent admission to hospital.

resultsThe national reoperation rate was 6.5% (15,986/246,469). A large degree of variation was identified among institutions and surgeons. Even among institutions and surgical teams with high caseloads, threefold and fivefold differences in reoperation rates were observed between the highest and lowest performing trusts and surgeons. Of the NHS trusts studied, 14.1% (22/156) had adjusted reoperation rates above the upper 99.8% control limit. Factors independently associated with higher risk of reoperation were diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.33 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.42), P<0.001), presence of multiple comorbidity (odds ratio 1.34 (1.29 to 1.39), P<0.001), social deprivation (1.14 (1.08 to 1.20) for most deprived, P<0.001), male sex (1.33 (1.29 to 1.38), P<0.001), rectal resection (1.63 (1.56 to 1.71), P<0.001), laparoscopic surgery (1.11 (1.03 to 1.20), P = 0.006), and emergency admission (1.21 (1.17 to 1.26), P<0.001).

conclusionsThere is large variation in reoperation after colorectal surgery between hospitals and surgeons in England. If data accuracy can be assured, reoperation may allow performance to be checked against national standards from current routinely collected data, alongside other indicators such as mortality.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal SurgeryElective Surgical ProceduresEmergency TreatmentEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality Indicators, Health CareReoperation

Identifiers

PMID21846714
PMCPMC3156827
OpenAlexW2073886019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.