Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24750983›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2014

Hospital variation in sphincter preservation for elderly rectal cancer patients.

Christopher M Dodgion, Bridget A Neville, Stuart R Lipsitz, Deborah Schrag, Elizabeth Breen, Michael J Zinner, Caprice C Greenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Christopher M DodgionWisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Bridget A NevilleCenter for Outcomes and Policy Research, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stuart R LipsitzCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Deborah SchragCenter for Outcomes and Policy Research, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Elizabeth BreenCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael J ZinnerCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Caprice C GreenbergWisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Electronic address: greenberg@surgery.wisc.edu.

Funding

ADVANCED TRAINING IN SURGICAL ONCOLOGYT32CA009535 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI BUENO, RAPHAEL · 1985 to 2015
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS L30 CA123695NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009535NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009535-23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary goal of an operation for rectal cancer is to cure cancer and, where possible, preserve continence. A wide range of sphincter preservation rates have been reported. This study evaluated hospital variation in the use of low anterior resection (LAR), local excision (LE), and abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the treatment of elderly rectal cancer patients.

methodsUsing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data, we identified 4959 patients older than 65 y with stage I-III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2000-2005 who underwent operative intervention at one of 370 hospitals. We evaluated the distribution of hospital-specific procedure rates and used generalized mixed models with random hospital effects to examine the influence of patient characteristics and hospital on operation type, using APR as a reference.

resultsThe median hospital performed APR on 33% of elderly patients with rectal cancer. Hospital was a stronger predictor of LAR receipt than any patient characteristic, explaining 32% of procedure choice, but not a strong predictor of LE, explaining only 3.8%. Receipt of LE was primarily related to tumor size and tumor stage, which combined explained 31% of procedure variation.

conclusionsReceipt of LE is primarily determined by patient characteristics. In contrast, the hospital where surgery is performed significantly influences whether a patient undergoes an LAR or APR. Understanding the factors that cause this institutional variation is crucial to ensuring equitable availability of sphincter preservation.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAnal CanalComorbidityDigestive System Surgical ProceduresFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPerineumPredictive Value of TestsRacial GroupsRectal NeoplasmsSEER ProgramElderlyHospital variationRectal cancerSphincter sparing surgery

Identifiers

PMID24750983
PMCPMC4134697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.