ReviewVisceral medicine2017
Is There a Rationale for Structural Quality Assurance in Esophageal Surgery?
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Textbook outcome contributes to long-term prognosis in elderly colorectal cancer patients.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Volume and Quality in Visceral Medicine.Visceral medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.