SynthesisUpdates in surgery2021
Systematic review of prospective studies focused on regionalization of care in surgical oncology.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To perform a systematic review of studies prospectively analyzing the impact of regionalization of complex surgical oncology care on patient outcomes. High volume care of complex surgical oncology patients has been repeatedly associated with improved outcomes. Most studies, however, are retrospective and have not prospectively accounted for confounders such as financial ability and social support. Four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Wiley), and EBSCHOHost) were searched from inception until August 25, 2018. Two authors independently reviewed 5887 references, with a third independent reviewer acting as arbitrator when needed. Data extracted from 11 articles that met inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessments conducted using MINORS criteria for the non-randomized, observational studies, and the Cochrane tool for the randomized-controlled trial. Of the 11 studies selected, we found 7 historically-controlled trials, two retrospective cohort studies with prospective data collection, one prospective study, and one randomized-controlled trial. 73% of studies were from Northern Europe, 18% from Ontario, Canada, and 9% from England. Pancreatic surgery accounted for 36% of studies, followed by gynecologic oncology (27%), thoracic surgery (18%), and dermatologic surgery (9%). The studies reported varying outcome parameters, but all showed improvement post-regionalization. Included studies featured poor-to-fair risk of bias. 11 studies indicated improved outcomes following regionalization of surgical oncology, but most exhibit poor methodological rigor. Prospective evidence for the regionalization of surgical oncology is lacking. More research addressing patient access to care and specialist availability is needed to understand the shortcomings of centralization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34028698What 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.