Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35254454›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2022

[Minimum case volumes from the perspective of university providers].

Christian Krautz, Robert Grützmann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Christian KrautzChirurgische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Krankenhausstr. 12, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland. christian.krautz@uk-erlangen.de.
Robert GrützmannChirurgische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Krankenhausstr. 12, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The association between patient volume and treatment quality has been sufficiently proven for certain surgical interventions (e.g., resections of the esophagus and pancreas). International experience shows that centralization of patient care in these fields leads to an improvement in outcome quality. If properly enforced, minimum caseload requirements can induce centralization effects in the hospital market. Overcapacities in the German hospital market and high nationwide in-hospital mortality rates (e.g., nationwide postoperative hospital mortality after esophageal and pancreatic resections) justify the current changes in the minimum caseload requirement regulation. Nevertheless, still open questions on volume-outcome relationships (e.g., additive volume effects of associated organ systems) have yet to be answered by scientific studies. In addition, the special role of university medical centers in the German healthcare system needs to be considered in the minimum caseload requirement regulation in order not to jeopardize the importance of university clinics in science, education and patient care through self-regulatory processes in the hospital market induced by minimum caseload requirements.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEsophagusHospital MortalityHumansPancreatectomyUniversitiesAdditive volume effectCentralizationHospital marketQuality indicatorsVolume-outcome relationship

Identifiers

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.