ReviewUpdates in surgery2026
Conceptualizing surgical ageism to address age-based discrimination.
Review in Updates in surgery, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ageism is an underrecognized form of discrimination that compromises equity, autonomy, and health outcomes for older adults. Inappropriate age-based assumptions can result in the underutilization of beneficial procedures, delayed interventions, and inequitable resource allocation. To conceptualize ageism in surgery by exploring its cognitive, systemic, and ethical underpinnings, and to propose actionable strategies to mitigate its impact on surgical decision-making and patient care. Through a conceptual framework, data from epidemiological studies, clinical trials, systematic reviews, and health policy reports were synthesized, providing proof for physicians' attitudes, systemic practices and ethical frameworks in perpetuating surgical ageism. Proof that cognitive biases can fuel ageism in surgery was demonstrated across multiple studies involving over 149,000 participants and more than 30 individual studies, each highlighting distinct biases that skew surgical decision-making, especially for older adults. Proof that systemic inequities contribute to surgical ageism was evidenced by studies on transplant referral, clinical trial exclusion, and ethical resource allocation frameworks, involving over 24,000 participants and multiple large-scale reviews. Finally, evidence supporting that educational strategies can mitigate ageism and the need for anti-ageism measures, was drawn from a range of studies involving over 20,000 participants across at least 80 studies. Surgical ageism stems from a confluence of cognitive, structural, and cultural factors. By addressing the drivers of ageism and implementing inclusive policies, the surgical community can promote person-centred care and uphold the dignity and rights of older adults in line with global health equity goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41350508What 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.