Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36125810›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Evaluation of Textbook Outcome as a Composite Quality Measure of Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

James Lucocq, John Scollay, Pradeep Patil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Impairment in activities of daily living and textbook outcome after major emergency abdominal surgery.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Predictors of textbook outcome following oesophagogastric cancer surgery.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2024
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. 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.

James LucocqDepartment of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, United Kingdom.
John ScollayDepartment of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Pradeep PatilDepartment of General and Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: A textbook outcome (TO) is a composite quality measure that incorporates multiple perioperative events to reflect the most desirable outcome. The use of TO increases the event rate, captures more outcomes to reflect patient experience, and can be used as a benchmark for quality improvement. Objectives: To introduce the concept of TO to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), propose the TO criteria, and identify characteristics associated with TO failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed at 3 surgical units in a single health board in the United Kingdom. Participants included all patients undergoing elective LC between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The TO criteria were defined based on review of existing TO metrics in the literature for other surgical procedures. A TO was defined as an unremarkable elective LC without conversion to open cholecystectomy, subtotal cholecystectomy, intraoperative complication, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥2), postoperative imaging, postoperative intervention, prolonged length of stay (>2 days), readmission within 100 days, or mortality. The rate of TOs was reported. Reasons for TO failure were reported, and preoperative characteristics were compared between TO and TO failure groups using both univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regressions. Results: A total of 2166 patients underwent elective LC (median age, 54 [range, 13-92] years; 1579 [72.9%] female). One thousand eight hundred fifty-one patients (85.5%) achieved a TO with an unremarkable perioperative course. Reasons for TO failure (315 patients [14.5%]) included conversion to open procedure (25 [7.9%]), subtotal cholecystectomy (59 [18.7%]), intraoperative complications (40 [12.7%]), postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥2; 92 [29.2%]), postoperative imaging (182 [57.8%]), postoperative intervention (57 [18.1%]), prolonged length of stay (>2 days; 142 [45.1%]), readmission (130 [41.3%]), and mortality (1 [0.3%]). Variables associated with TO failure included increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists score (odds ratio [OR], 2.55 [95 CI, 1.69-3.85]; P < .001), increasing number of prior biliary-related admissions (OR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.36-5.27]; P = .004), acute cholecystitis (OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.08-1.85]; P = .01), preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (OR, 2.07 [95% CI, 1.46-2.92]; P < .001), and preoperative cholecystostomy (OR, 3.22 [95% CI, 1.54-6.76]; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that applying the concept of TO to elective LC provides a benchmark to identify suboptimal patterns of care and enables institutions to identify strategies for quality improvement.

Indexed as

Cholecystectomy, LaparoscopicElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsQuality Indicators, Health CareRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID36125810
PMCPMC9490496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.