Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29400016›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2018

Impact of institutional accreditation by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology on the treatment and survival of women with cervical cancer.

Mikio Mikami, Masako Shida, Takeo Shibata, Hidetaka Katabuchi, Junzo Kigawa, Daisuke Aoki, Nobuo Yaegashi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Does access to quality accreditation improve health? - Patient-level evidence from German cancer care.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mikio MikamiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan. mmikami@is.icc.u-tokai.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-7496-3518
Masako ShidaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2359-5003
Takeo ShibataDepartment of Molecular Life Science, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-2538-7593
Hidetaka KatabuchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kumamoto University, University Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-2403-6134
Junzo KigawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tottori Prefectural Hospital, Tottori, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-6206-8292
Daisuke AokiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9596-8326
Nobuo YaegashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2521-039X
Tokai University · JPKeio University · JPKumamoto University · JPTohoku University · JPTottori Prefectural Central Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO) initiated a nation-wide training system for the education and certification for gynecologic oncologists in 2005. To assess the impact of the quality of the JSGO-accredited institutions, JSGO undertook an analysis of the Uterine Cervical Cancer Registry of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) to determine the effectiveness of the JSGO-accredited institutions on the treatment and survival of women with cervical cancer.

methodsThe effectiveness of 119 JSGO-accredited institutions and 125 non-JSGO-accredited institutions on the treatment and survival of women with cervical cancer were compared by analyzing the tumor characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes of women with stage T1B-T4 cervical cancer utilizing the data in the JSOG nation-wide registry for cervical cancer (2006-2009).

resultsA total of 14,185 eligible women were identified: 10,920 (77.0%) cases for 119 JSGO-accredited institutions and 3,265 (23.0%) cases for 125 non-accredited institutions. A multivariate analysis showed that age, stage, histology type, and treatment pattern were independently associated with mortality. Moreover, women who received treatment at the JSGO-accredited institutions had a significantly decreased mortality risk compared to non-accredited institutions (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=0.843; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.784-0.905). Similar findings on multivariate analysis were seen among subset of women who received surgery alone (aHR=0.552; 95% CI=0.393-0.775) and among women who received radiotherapy (aHR=0.845; 95% CI=0.766-0.931).

conclusionSuccessful implementation of gynecologic oncology accrediting institution was associated with improved survival outcome of women with cervical cancer in Japan.

Indexed as

AccreditationAdultAgedCertificationFemaleGynecologyHealth FacilitiesHospitalsHumansJapanMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingQuality of Health CareSocieties, MedicalFellowship TrainingGeneral SurgeryGyenecologic OncologistSpecializationSurgical Procedures, OperativeUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29400016
PMCPMC5823984
OpenAlexW2777771655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.