ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Embarking on improvement cycles - the next steps in surgical benchmarking.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of 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
purposeTo develop a standardized, clinically applicable methodology for comparing surgical outcomes with established benchmark cut-offs and guiding structured quality improvement. Benchmarking compares clinical outcomes with defined performance thresholds to identify areas for improvement. While benchmark values are available for various surgical procedures, there is no standardized methodology that allows for direct application in clinical practice. This limits their use in routine quality management and continuous improvement processes.
methodsA structured quality improvement cycle was developed to compare own data with surgical benchmark cut-offs for ideal (and non-ideal patients). The approach includes periodic comparison of clinical outcomes with benchmark cut-offs, root cause analysis for deviations, and implementation of targeted interventions. The method was applied to a cohort of 98 patients undergoing low anterior resections between 2018 and 2023. Outcomes were analyzed over overlapping 18-month rolling windows, updated every 6 months, to track trends and assess adherence to benchmarks.
resultsThe analysis revealed deviations from benchmark targets, especially in readmission rates due to ileostomy-related complications. Root cause analysis identified gaps in postoperative care and patient education. In response, targeted measures were implemented, including multimedia-based ostomy education, improved nutrition protocols, enhanced outpatient support, and structured follow-up. These interventions aim to reduce deviations and improve outcomes in future assessment cycles.
conclusionsThis methodology allows comparison of surgical outcomes with established benchmark cut-offs to guide structured quality improvement. It enables surgical teams to identify outcome gaps, implement data-driven interventions, and foster continuous quality improvement. The framework is adaptable to various procedures with existing benchmarks and promotes evidence-based surgical excellence.
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.