Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35474508›Full record

ReviewThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2022

A review of gynaecological surgical practices for trainees and certified specialists in Australia by volume using MBS and AIHW databases.

Lalla McCormack, Erin Nesbitt-Hawes, Rebecca Deans, Anais Alonso, Claire Lim, Fiona Li, Blake Knapman, Jason A Abbott

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Gynecology residents' preparedness to perform standard gynecological procedures autonomously: A national survey among French residents and faculty.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lalla McCormackGynaecologic Research and Clinical Evaluation (GRACE) group, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8142-4192
Erin Nesbitt-HawesGynaecologic Research and Clinical Evaluation (GRACE) group, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca DeansGynaecologic Research and Clinical Evaluation (GRACE) group, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7932-550X
Anais AlonsoGynaecologic Research and Clinical Evaluation (GRACE) group, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Claire LimGynaecologic Research and Clinical Evaluation (GRACE) group, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Fiona LiGynaecologic Research and Clinical Evaluation (GRACE) group, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Blake KnapmanGynaecologic Research and Clinical Evaluation (GRACE) group, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jason A AbbottGynaecologic Research and Clinical Evaluation (GRACE) group, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4406-3121
Royal Hospital for Women · AU

Funding

Australasian Gynaecological Endoscopy and Surgery (AGES) Society Limited
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a finite volume of surgery performed annually by trainees and certified specialists alike. The detailed assessment of this surgical substrate is important, since it guides true exposure in gynaecological surgical training and practice after fellowship.

aimsThis study quantifies the volume and profile of major gynaecological surgical procedures performed in Australia within a specified five-year period and discusses the implications for training and practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsAustralian Institute of Health and Welfare data were examined to quantify the total number of major gynaecological procedures performed between 2013 and 2018. Medicare data were analysed to quantify the number of billed procedures. These data were compared with published Australian RANZCOG trainees and operative gynaecologists, to estimate the potential annual average exposure for each procedure.

resultsMajor open, laparoscopic and vaginal surgeries constitute less than 27% of the 600 000 gynaecological procedures performed annually in Australia. Most major gynaecological surgeries are performed at rates lower than 12 cases per year for both trainees and specialists. Over the study period, laparotomies, vaginal hysterectomies and continence procedures decreased, and operative laparoscopies and laparoscopic hysterectomies increased.

conclusionsThe volume of available major gynaecological procedures in Australia may not allow sufficient exposure for optimal training and practice for all trainees and specialists in operative gynaecology. This shortfall may compromise the ability to obtain and maintain proficiency in some core gynaecological operative procedures.

Indexed as

GynecologyNational Health ProgramsAgedAustraliaClinical CompetenceFellowships and ScholarshipsFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansgynaecological surgical training, operativegynaecology

Identifiers

PMID35474508
PMCPMC9542106
OpenAlexW4224950717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.