ArticleThe British journal of surgery2024
Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.
Article in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gastrointestinal symptoms and health-related quality of life before and after pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer (GO-PANC): longitudinal nationwide study.The British journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Achievement of the Ideal Outcome After Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Is Associated With Earlier Initiation and Higher Completion Rates of Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Improved Long-Term Survival.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of a Multimodal Prehabilitation Program on Perioperative Outcomes in Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- International Benchmark Values for Robotic Right Hepatectomy: Multicenter Study From 22 Expert Centers.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Textbook Outcome After Oral Cancer Surgery as a Composite Measure for Survival and Quality-of-Care Evaluation.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Risk Factors and Strategies for Failure to Rescue Following Hepatectomy: A Review.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2025Review
- Review
- Surgical Complications for Oral Cavity Cancer: Evaluating Hospital Performance.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Impact of feeding strategy after pancreatoduodenectomy on delayed gastric emptying and hospital stay: nationwide study.BJS open · 2025Article
- Textbook outcomes in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration of choledocholithiasis: a new comprehensive quality evaluation criterion.Frontiers in surgery · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified.
methodsA population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).
resultsIn total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers.
conclusionCurrent event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.
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.