Observational studyInternational journal of colorectal disease2019
Does it matter where you get your surgery for colorectal cancer?
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Success rates of American clinical oncology trials by geographic factors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- "Colorectal Cancer Care Quality in a Developing Country: Insights from a Comparison of Teaching and Non-teaching Hospitals in Iran".PloS one · 2025Article
- Factors associated with medical students' career choice in different specialties: a multiple cross-sectional questionnaire study at a German medical school.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Positive margin rates for colorectal cancer vary significantly by hospital in Michigan: Can we achieve a 0 % positive margin rate?Surgery open science · 2023Article
- Adjuvant treatment of surgically treated bone metastasis patients: association with hospital characteristics and trends over time.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Article
- The Influence of Hospital Characteristics on Patient Survival in Surgically Managed Metastatic Disease of Bone: An Analysis of the SEER-Medicare Linked Database.American journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Morbidity and mortality after major large bowel resection of non-malignant polyp among participants in a population-based screening program.Journal of medical screening · 2021Article
- The gut microbiota and colorectal surgery outcomes: facts or hype? A narrative review.BMC surgery · 2021Review
- Cutaneous Metastasis in the Setting of Both Colon and Breast Primary Malignancies.Case reports in gastrointestinal medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
31720828What 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.