Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34627143›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Assessing the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery: a scoping review.

Mathieu Levaillant, Romaric Marcilly, Lucie Levaillant, Philippe Michel, Jean-François Hamel-Broza, Benoît Vallet, Antoine Lamer

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Analysis of root causes of adverse events with Mazor X and Mazor X stealth edition-guided spine surgeries: an FDA MAUDE database study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Chance of pouch surgery after colectomy for ulcerative colitis based on pelvic pouch volumes at the colectomy hospital, a Swedish national cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Mathieu LevaillantUniv. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - METRICS: Évaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, F-59000, Lille, France. mathieu.levaillant@gmail.com.
Romaric MarcillyUniv. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - METRICS: Évaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, F-59000, Lille, France.
Lucie LevaillantDepartment of Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France.
Philippe MichelHospices Civils de Lyon ; Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Research on Healthcare Performance (RESHAPE), INSERM U1290, Lyon, France.
Jean-François Hamel-BrozaMethodologic and Biostatistics Department, CHU Angers, University Angers, 4 rue Larrey, F-49000, Angers, cedex 9, France.
Benoît ValletUniv. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - METRICS: Évaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, F-59000, Lille, France.
Antoine LamerUniv. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - METRICS: Évaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, F-59000, Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany recent studies have investigated the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery. In some cases, the results have prompted the centralization of surgical activity. However, the methodologies and interpretations differ markedly from one study to another. The objective of the present scoping review was to describe the various features used to assess the volume-outcome relationship: the analyzed datasets, study population, outcome, covariates, confounders, volume modalities, and statistical methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review was conducted according to a study protocol published in BMJ Open in 2020. Two authors (both of whom had helped to design the study protocol) screened publications independently according to the title, the abstract and then the full text. To ensure exhaustivity, all the papers included by each reviewer went through to the next step.

interpretationThe 403 included studies covered 90 types of surgery, 61 types of outcome, and 72 covariates or potential confounders. 191 (47.5%) studies focussed on oncological surgery and 37.8% focussed visceral or digestive tract surgery. Overall, 86.6% of the studies found a statistically significant volume-outcome relationship, although the findings differed from one type of surgery to another. Furthermore, the types of outcome and the covariates were highly diverse. The majority of studies were performed in Western countries, and oncological and visceral surgical procedures were over-represented; this might limit the generalizability and comparability of the studies' results.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresHospitalsDelivery of Health CareHumansHospitalQuality indicatorSurgeryVolume-outcome relationship

Identifiers

PMID34627143
PMCPMC8502281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.