ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Benchmarking outcomes for distal pancreatectomy: critical evaluation of four multicenter studies.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pancreatic surgery and length of hospital stay: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.BJS open · 2026Pooled it
- Competency, Proficiency, and Mastery: Learning Curves for Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy at 16 International Expert Centers.Annals of surgery · 2026Article
- Correlation between inflammation, vascularization, adipocyte percentage and exocrine cell percentage at the resection margin and the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after distal pancreatectomy.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Effect of Volume on Postoperative Outcomes After Left Pancreatectomy: A Multicenter Prospective Snapshot Study (SPANDISPAN Project).Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- International validation of the distal pancreatectomy fistula risk score: evaluation in minimally invasive and open surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBenchmarking is a validated tool for outcome assessment and international comparison of best achievable surgical outcomes. The methodology is increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and the aim of the review was to critically compare available benchmark studies evaluating distal pancreatectomy (DP).
methodsA literature search of English articles reporting on benchmarking DP was conducted of the electronic databases MEDLINE and Web of Science (until April 2023). Studies on open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic DP (RDP) were included.
resultsFour retrospective multicenter studies were included. Studies reported on outcomes of minimally invasive DP only (n = 2), ODP and LDP (n = 1), and RDP only (n = 1). Either the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ method or the 75th percentile from the median was selected to define benchmark cutoffs. Robust and reproducible benchmark values were provided by the four studies for intra- and postoperative short-term outcomes.
conclusionBenchmarking DP is a valuable tool for obtaining internationally accepted reference outcomes for open and minimally invasive DP approaches with only minor variances in four international cohorts. Benchmark cutoffs allow for outcome comparisons between institutions, surgeons, and to monitor the introduction of novel minimally invasive DP techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.