ReviewBMC surgery2025
A review of the United States global surgery program landscape by website analysis.
Review in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the past decade, since the 2015 Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) highlighted the global burden of disease attributable to a lack of safe surgical care, medical degree-granting institutions across the United States (US) have worked to increase engagement in global surgery. The research team aimed to analyze the current landscape and provide an overview of all US-based global surgery programs. It was predicted that most medical institutions in the US would not have established programs. For those with global surgery programs, their mission statements and demonstrated output were classified according to a list of five domains, including bidirectionality, education, partnerships, research, and service. These domains were generated from the priorities outlined by the LCoGS 2030 objectives as there is no universally accepted gold standard for quality evaluation in global surgery education. The team hypothesized that mission statements for existing programs would meet a majority, but not all, of the five domains, and that programs would demonstrate less output than their projected goals.
methodsThe team conducted a qualitative analysis of all global surgery programmatic offerings across the US. A list of terms was established to analyze the websites published for each US allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) program. An Excel matrix was produced that outlined all desired information. The domains were used to organize and classify the collected data.
resultsOut of 194 US MD- and DO- granting institutions, 39 had global surgery programs. Twenty-five programs had missions that addressed three to four of the domains and 12 programs projected pursuit of all five domains. Of the 12 programs that projected this mission to meet all five objectives, six demonstrated tangible output in all five areas. Bidirectionality was the most common domain not addressed by programs in either their mission statement or output.
conclusionsGlobal surgery is a nascent field, and as predicted, the majority of medical institutions do not have a global surgery program. Furthermore, institutions with programs and well-defined missions did meet a majority of the five domains. Contrary to the team's prediction, most existing programs demonstrated equal or greater output than their expressed goals.
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.