Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37223225›Full record

ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2023

Measuring Quality at the Surgeon Level.

Elias A Chamely, Jonah J Stulberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Elias A ChamelyDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas.
Jonah J StulbergDepartment of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients expect high-quality surgical care and increasingly are looking for ways to assess the quality of the surgeon they are seeing, but quality measurement is often more complicated than one might expect. Measurement of individual surgeon quality in a manner that allows for comparison among surgeons is particularly difficult. While the concept of measuring individual surgeon quality has a long history, technology now allows for new and innovative ways to measure and achieve surgical excellence. However, some recent efforts to make surgeon-level quality data publicly available have highlighted the challenges of this work. Through this chapter, the reader will be introduced to a brief history of surgical quality measurement, learn about the current state of quality measurement, and get a glimpse into what the future holds.

Indexed as

surgical qualitytechnical skillsvideo-based assessment

Identifiers

PMID37223225
PMCPMC10202541

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.