Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31720828›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of colorectal disease2019

Does it matter where you get your surgery for colorectal cancer?

Mohammad Hamidi, Kamil Hanna, Pamela Omesiete, Alejandro Cruz, Agnes Ewongwo, Viraj Pandit, Bellal Joseph, Valentine Nfonsam

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Effect of Facility Volume on Survival Following Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

8 authors.

Mohammad HamidiDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, USA.
Kamil HannaDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, USA.
Pamela OmesieteDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, USA.
Alejandro CruzDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, USA.
Agnes EwongwoDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, USA.
Viraj PanditDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, USA.
Bellal JosephDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, USA.
Valentine NfonsamDepartment of Surgery, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, USA. vnfonsam@surgery.arizona.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1213-8053

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe influence of hospital-related factors on outcomes following colorectal surgery is not well-established. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital factors on outcomes in surgically managed colorectal cancer patients.

methodsWe performed a 2-year (2014-2015) analysis of the NIS database. Adult (> 18 years) patients who underwent open or laparoscopic colorectal resection were identified using ICD-9 codes. Patients were stratified based on hospital: volume (low vs. high), teaching status, and location (urban vs. rural). Outcome measures were complications and mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was performed.

resultsA total of 153,453 patients with CRC were identified of which 35.3% underwent surgical management. Mean age was 69 ± 13 years, 51.6% were female, and 67% were white. Twenty-seven percent of the patients were managed at a high-volume center, 48% at intermediate-volume center while 25% at a low-volume center. Complications and mortality rates were lower in patients who were managed at high-volume centers and urban hospitals, while no difference was noticed based on teaching status. On regression analysis, patients managed at high-volume centers (OR 0.76 [0.56-0.89]) and urban hospitals (OR 0.83 [0.64-0.91]) have lower odds of complications; similarly, high-volume centers (OR 0.79 [0.65-0.90]) and urban facility (OR 0.87 [0.70-0.92]) were associated with lower odds of mortality. However, there was no association between teaching status and outcomes.

conclusionHospital factors significantly influence outcomes in patients with CRC managed surgically. High-volume centers and urban facilities have relatively better outcomes. Regionalization of care along with the appropriate availability of resources may improve outcomes in patients with CRC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Observational Study.

Indexed as

ColectomyHospitals, High-VolumeHospitals, UrbanAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualFemaleHospitals, Low-VolumeHospitals, RuralHospitals, TeachingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerHospital volumeRuralTeaching hospitalUrban

Identifiers

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.