ArticleBMJ open2020
Assessing the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Volume-outcome relationships for tracheostomies in Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Units: A registry-based retrospective study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEven if a positive volume-outcome correlation in surgery is mostly admitted in many surgical fields, the various ways to assess this relationship make it difficult for researchers and policymakers to use it. Our aim is therefore to provide an overview of the way hospital volume-outcome relationship was assessed. Through this overview, our goal is to identify potential gaps in the assessment of this relationship, to help researchers who want to pursue work in this field and, ultimately, to help policy makers interpret such analyses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be conducted using the six stages of the scoping review method: identifying the research question, searching for relevant studies, selecting studies, data extraction, collating, summarising and reporting the results and concluding. This review will address all the key questions used to assess the volume-outcome relationship in surgery.Primary research papers investigating the hospital volume-outcome relationship from 2009 will be included. Studies only looking at surgeons' volume-outcome relationship or studies were the volume variable is not individualisable will be excluded.Both MEDLINE and Scopus will be searched along with grey literature. Two researchers will perform all the stages of the review: screen the titles and abstracts, review the full text of selected articles to determine final inclusions and extract the data. The results will be summarised quantitatively using numerical counts. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DISSEMINATION: Reviews of published articles are considered secondary analysis and do not need ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through multiple channels like conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
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.