Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35195731›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2022

[Minimum case volume regulations in surgery from the perspective of the specialist society (DGCH) : Balancing act between science, politics, treatment reality and a range of other aspects].

Hauke Lang, Peter Philipp Grimminger, Hans-Joachim Meyer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. [Robot-assisted esophageal surgery].Magyar onkologia · 2024
    Review
  4. Western European Variation in the Organization of Esophageal Cancer Surgical Care.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

3 authors.

Hauke LangKlinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland. Hauke.Lang@unimedizin-mainz.de.
Peter Philipp GrimmingerKlinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland.
Hans-Joachim MeyerGeneralsekretär der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The scientifically founded surgical specialist discussion regarding the legal requirements for minimum volume numbers for diverse organ systems and selected surgical procedures as the basis of quality assurance and optimization of treatment is not new. Comprehensive and also reliable data from national and international studies are available for colorectal surgery, pancreatic surgery, esophageal surgery, liver surgery and gastric surgery. Recently, the raising of the minimum volume for complex esophageal interventions by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) in Germany from 10 up to 26 procedures per hospital and year, reignited the debate on this topic as well as the debate on centralization in the healthcare system in general. This decision seems to be scientifically well-justified from the perspective of political bodies and realizable in the practical implementation; however, from the perspective of physicians routinely involved in the corresponding highly complex procedures, there is a very much broader basis for discussion, which is only partially covered by a report of the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in the Healthcare System (IQWiG) as the foundation of the decision of the G‑BA. For the scientifically oriented surgical specialist society, in the first instance priority is given to the scientific evidence as the guiding principle. Nevertheless, aspects of the treatment reality cannot and should not be ignored. Therefore, the recommendations of the specialist society must be oriented not only to the quality of results but also to the realistic options for successful implementation in practice. Furthermore, questions of further education, the right of the patient to freedom of choice of the physician and preservation of the attractiveness of the occupational profile of surgeons are immanent topics for the surgical specialist society.

Indexed as

Digestive System Surgical ProceduresSurgeonsDelivery of Health CareGermanyHumansPoliticsAdvanced educationEvidenceQuality assuranceTreatment optimizationTreatment reality

Identifiers

PMID35195731
PMCPMC8864976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.