ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014
The impact of organisational external peer review on colorectal cancer treatment and survival in the Netherlands.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of colorectal multidisciplinary team meetings: an international comparison.BJS open · 2021Pooled it
- Understanding how and why audits work in improving the quality of hospital care: A systematic realist review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Mediators of change in healthcare organisations subject to external assessment: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of a peer-review network on the quality of inpatient low secure mental health services: cluster randomised control trial.BMC health services research · 2018Trial
- Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review.JMIR human factors · 2023Review
- Metastatic colorectal cancer prior to expanded RAS assessment: evidence from long-term outcome analysis of a real-life cohort within a dedicated colorectal cancer unit.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Two decades of external peer review of cancer care in general hospitals; the Dutch experience.Cancer medicine · 2016Article
- Staff perceptions of change resulting from participation in a European cancer accreditation programme: a snapshot from eight cancer centres.Ecancermedicalscience · 2015Article
- Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women.BMC cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrganisational external peer review was introduced in 1994 in the Netherlands to improve multidisciplinary cancer care. We examined the clinical impact of this programme on colorectal cancer care.
methodsPatients with primary colorectal cancer were included from 23 participating hospitals and 7 controls. Hospitals from the intervention group were dichotomised by their implementation proportion (IP) of the recommendations from each peer review (high IP vs low IP). Outcome measures were the introduction of new multidisciplinary therapies and survival.
resultsIn total, 45 705 patients were included (1990-2010). Patients from intervention hospitals more frequently received adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. T2-3/M0 rectal cancer patients from hospitals with a high IP had a higher chance of receiving preoperative radiotherapy (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.55) compared with the controls and low IP group (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.88). There were no differences in the use of preoperative chemoradiation for T4/M0 rectal cancer. Survival was slightly higher in colon cancer patients from intervention hospitals but unrelated to the phase of the programme in which the hospital was at the time of diagnosis.
conclusionsSome positive effects of external peer review on cancer care were found, but the results need to be interpreted cautiously due to the ambiguity of the outcomes and possible confounding factors.
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.