Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28560229›Full record

ReviewVisceral medicine2017

Is There a Rationale for Structural Quality Assurance in Esophageal Surgery?

Torben Glatz, Jens Höppner

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Visceral medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery: an international consensus-based update of a quality measure.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2021
    Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Torben GlatzDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University of Freiburg, Freiburg i. Br., Germany.
Jens HöppnerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University of Freiburg, Freiburg i. Br., Germany.
University of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances regarding perioperative mortality rates and oncological outcomes after esophagectomy have been reported extensively by specialized high-volume centers in Europe and the USA over the last decade. However, recent database analyses reveal that the perioperative mortality of esophagectomy remains high in these countries, indicating a discrepancy between surgical quality in baseline hospitals and specialized centers.

methodsThis article provides an overview over the existing literature on the correlation between structural quality, procedural volume, and surgical outcome in e- sophageal surgery.

resultsStructural, procedural and outcome measures can be used to assess the quality of surgical treatment and perioperative management. Surgical procedures on the esophagus for both benign and malignant diseases are rare and typically associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. Usually, direct outcome measures do not provide enough statistical power to actually identify differences in surgical quality between hospitals, making structural quality measures the only feasible parameter to compare the quality of e- sophageal surgery among different centers. Several analyses from different countries have shown a strong correlation between hospital volume and postoperative mortality. Data from countries in which esophageal surgery has been centralized indicate beneficial effects of a centralized health care system on postoperative mortality after esophagectomy. Additionally, only high-volume centers generally provide optimal preoperative and postoperative management and comprehensive access to modern multimodal treatment. In Germany, esophageal surgery is still decentralized, but hospitals performing complex esophageal procedures have to fulfill minimum caseload requirements of 10 cases per year. In practice, these requirements are not met by the majority of hospitals and a detrimental effect on the achieved surgical outcomes can be noted.

conclusionTherefore, we conclude that structural quality assurance is crucial to further reduce postoperative morbidity after esophageal surgery and to improve long-term results.

Indexed as

Esophageal cancerEsophagectomyHospital volumeStructural quality

Identifiers

PMID28560229
PMCPMC5447175
OpenAlexW2601758251

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.