ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2014
The association between county-level surgeon density and esophageal and gastric cancer mortality.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should Measures of Health Care Availability Be Based on the Providers or the Procedures? A Case Study with Implications for Rural Colorectal Cancer Disparities.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical resection plays an integral part in the curative treatment of esophageal (EC) and gastric cancer (GC). The impact of the allocation of surgeons at the county level on these cancer outcomes is unclear. Our aims were to examine the effect of surgeon density on EC and GC mortality and to compare the relative roles of thoracic and general surgeons on outcomes.
methodsUsing county-level data from the Area Resource File, we constructed multivariate regression models to explore the effect of thoracic and general surgeon density on EC and GC mortality, adjusting for cancer incidence rate, county-level, socioeconomic factors and health care resource metrics.
resultsIn total, 663 and 539 counties were analyzed for EC and GC, respectively: Mean EC and GC mortality rates were 4.95 and 4.07; mean thoracic and general surgeon density were 6 and 50 per 100,000 people, respectively. When compared to counties with no thoracic surgeons, those with at least one thoracic surgeon had reduced EC mortality. For GC, counties with one or more general surgeons also had decreased deaths when compared with those without any general surgeons. While increasing the density of surgeons beyond ten only yielded minimal improvements in EC mortality, this resulted in significant further reductions in GC mortality.
conclusionsMortality from GC appears to be more susceptible to the benefits of increased surgeon density. For EC, a strategic policy of allocating health resources and distributing the surgical workforce proportionally across counties will be best able to optimize outcomes at the population-based level.
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.