ArticleBMC health services research2022
What underlies the observed hospital volume-outcome relationship?
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between hospital volume and outcomes in ovarian cancer: a systematic review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The Good and Bad of Regionalizing Colon Cancer Care.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025Review
- Implementation of a virtual multi-disciplinary model of care for people affected by cancer: a qualitative evaluation.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Understanding the Influence of Hospital Volume on Inpatient Outcomes Following Hospitalization for Status Epilepticus.Neurocritical care · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies of the hospital volume-outcome relationship have highlighted that a greater volume activity improves patient outcomes. While this finding has been known for years, most studies to date have failed to delve into what underlies this relationship.
objectiveThis study aimed to shed light on the basis of the hospital volume effect on patient outcomes by comparing treatment modalities for epithelial ovarian carcinoma patients. DATA: An exhaustive dataset of 355 patients in first-line treatment for Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma (EOC) in 2012 in three regions of France was used. These regions account for 15% of the metropolitan French population.
methodsIn the presence of endogeneity induced by a reverse causality between hospital volume and patient outcomes, we used an instrumental variable approach. Hospital volume of activity was instrumented by the distance from patients' homes to their hospital, the population density, and the median net income of patient municipalities.
resultsBased on our parameter estimates, we found that the rate of complete tumor resection would increase by 15.5 percentage points with centralized care, and by 8.3 percentage points if treatment decisions were coordinated by high-volume centers compared to decentralized care.
conclusionAs volume alone is an imperfect correlate of quality, policy-makers need to know what volume is a proxy for in order to devise volume-based policies.
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.