Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38943030›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2024

Outcomes after gastrectomy according to the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA).

Maurits R Visser, Daan M Voeten, Suzanne S Gisbertz, Jelle P Ruurda, Mark I van Berge Henegouwen, Richard van Hillegersberg, Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Speaking Volumes About High-Volume Centers.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Maurits R VisserDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5677-1264
Daan M VoetenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Suzanne S GisbertzCancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jelle P RuurdaDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mark I van Berge HenegouwenCancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Richard van HillegersbergDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. r.vanhillegersberg@umcutrecht.nl.
Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2019, the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group (GCCG) published a standardized set of complications aiming toward uniform reporting of post-gastrectomy complications. This study aimed to report outcomes after gastrectomy in the Netherlands according to GCCG definitions and compare them to previously reported national results and the European database reported by the GCCG.

methodsThis nationwide, population-based cohort study included all patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer registered in the DUCA in 2020-2021. Postoperative morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality were analyzed according to the GCCG definitions. For all patients, baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared with the GCCG cohort consisting of 27 European expert centers (GASTRODATA; 2017-2018).

resultsIn 2020-2021, 782 patients underwent gastrectomy in the Netherlands. Variation was seen in baseline characteristics between the Dutch and the GCCG cohort (N = 1349), most notably in minimally invasive surgery (80.6% vs 19.6%, p < 0.001). In the Netherlands, 223 (28.5%) patients developed a total of 407 complications, the most frequent being non-surgical infections (28.5%) and anastomotic leakage (13.4%). The overall complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar between the Dutch and GCCG cohort (28.5% vs 29.8%, p = 0.563; 3.7% vs 3.6%, p = 0.953). Higher surgical and endoscopic/radiologic reintervention rates were observed in the Netherlands compared to the GCCG cohort (10.7% vs 7.8%, p = 0.025; 10.9% vs 2.9%, p < 0.001).

conclusionReporting outcomes according to the standardized GCCG definitions allows for international benchmarking. Postoperative outcomes were comparable between Dutch and GCCG cohorts, but both exceed the international benchmark for expert gastrectomy care, highlighting targets for national and international quality improvement.

Indexed as

GastrectomyPostoperative ComplicationsStomach NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overBenchmarkingCohort StudiesConsensus Statements as TopicFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsComplicationsGastrectomyGastric carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID38943030
PMCPMC11335793

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.