ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2022
[Minimum volume requirements-perspective of a tertiary care hospital].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anticipated effects of centralising complex gastrointestinal surgery in a rural area in Germany - perspective of health professionals: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Caseload per Year in Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- [Effects of new minimum volume standards in visceral surgery on healthcare in Brandenburg, Germany, from the perspective of healthcare providers].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increase of minimum volumes for complex esophageal resections decided by the Federal Joint Committee (GBA) in Germany is currently the subject of intensive discussions.
objectiveTo shed light on the effects of minimum volume requirements from the perspective of a tertiary care hospital.
resultsStrict adherence to the valid minimum volume requirements for esophageal surgery would significantly reduce the number of hospitals offering these procedures in Germany. The associated loss of revenue should not have any relevant negative economic consequences for most hospitals; however, the loss of complex esophageal surgery may result in a competitive disadvantage for these hospitals in times of shortage of qualified medical personnel. Another point of criticism is the assumption that the treatment quality can be recognized based solely on the numbers of patients.
conclusionDespite the well-known volume-outcome relationship, minimum volume requirements do not define the lower limit of quality of surgical treatment. Therefore, additional evidence of treatment quality, such as structural or process quality as well as outcome parameters should be required, e.g. through certification. An obligatory synchronous certification could contribute to increasing the acceptance of minimum volume requirements in Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34985547What 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.