ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2019
Statewide Clinic Registries: The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative.
Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- β-Lactam vs Non-β-Lactam Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery.JAMA network open · 2026Observational
- Association of Prophylactic Antibiotic Guideline Non-Adherence with Surgical Site Infections in Patients Receiving Perioperative Vancomycin: Results from a Multi-Institutional Combined NSQIP and MPOG Registry.Annals of surgery · 2025Article
- Operative decision making for repair of emergent primary and recurrent ventral hernia.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2025Article
- Article
- Positive margin rates for colorectal cancer vary significantly by hospital in Michigan: Can we achieve a 0 % positive margin rate?Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Implementation of a synoptic operative note for abdominal wall hernia repair: a statewide pilot evaluating completeness and communication of intraoperative details.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Using appropriateness criteria to identify opportunities to improve perioperative urinary catheter use.American journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Population-Based Analysis of Adherence to Postdischarge Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Colorectal Resection.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regional clinical registries provide a unique opportunity for shared learning and population-based analyses of the quality of surgical care. Through the "Michigan Model" of pay for participation in strategic Value Partnerships, exemplified by the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC), the state's dominant private insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, has sponsored 20 statewide clinical quality improvement collaboratives. MSQC represents a partnership among 73 Michigan hospitals with a robust data infrastructure and flexible platform for the promulgation of best practices in surgical quality improvement. This article will describe the organizational structure of the MSQC, the contributions the registry has made to quality improvement in colorectal surgery, and how future work will align to improve the reliability of improvement-relevant registry data.
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.