ArticleSurgery2016
Characterizing the role of a high-volume cancer resection ecosystem on low-volume, high-quality surgical care.
Article in Surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distribution of Elective Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis Cases for Ulcerative Colitis: a Study Utilizing the University Health System Consortium Database.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Article
- Chemoradiotherapy With or Without Surgery for Esophageal Squamous Cancer According to Hospital Volume.JCO global oncology · 2020Article
- Prophylactic Pancreatectomies Carry Prohibitive Mortality at Low-Volume Centers: A California Cancer Registry Study.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- Regionalization of thoracic surgery improves short-term cancer esophagectomy outcomes.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Seeing the forest beyond the trees: Predicting survival in burn patients with machine learning.American journal of surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byDiscussion.2016
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur objective was to determine the hospital resources required for low-volume, high-quality care at high-volume cancer resection centers.
methodsPatients who underwent esophageal, pancreatic, and rectal resection for malignancy were identified using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database (Florida and California) between 2007 and 2011. Annual case volume by procedure was used to identify high- and low-volume centers. Hospital data were obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Procedure risk-adjusted mortality was calculated for each hospital using multilevel, mixed-effects models.
resultsA total of 24,784 patients from 302 hospitals met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 13 hospitals were classified as having a high-volume, oncologic resection ecosystem by being a high-volume hospital for ≥2 studied procedures. A total of 11 of 31 studied hospital factors were strongly associated with hospitals that performed a high volume of cancer resections and were used to develop the High Volume Ecosystem for Oncologic Resections (HIVE-OR) score. At low-volume centers, increasing HIVE-OR score resulted in decreased mortality for rectal cancer resection (P = .038). HIVE-OR was not related to risk-adjusted mortality for esophagectomy (P = .421) or pancreatectomy (P = .413) at low-volume centers.
conclusionOur study found that in some settings, low-volume, high-quality cancer surgical care can be explained by having a high-volume ecosystem.
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.