ArticleBMC surgery2026
Surveying prioritisation for emergency surgery - do the specialties involved agree?
Article in BMC 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
backgroundSurgical resources are often shared across medical specialties, which can lead to conflicts over prioritisation during on-call hours. This study investigated factors contributing to inter-speciality conflict in the prioritisation of emergency surgical cases.
methodsA survey on views of surgical urgency and prioritisation of 22 hypothetical cases was distributed to Swedish physicians involved in emergency surgery via posters in operating departments and administrative areas, and by email. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's post-hoc test were used to compare responses across specialties. Factors associated with daily conflicts were identified using logistic regression.
resultsOf 233 respondents, 201 (90%) reported sharing resources with other specialties. General surgeons (45%), orthopaedic surgeons (15%), and anaesthetists (15%) were the most represented. Over half reported insufficient resources for emergency surgery. Sixty-nine per cent perceived that other specialties over-prioritised their own patients. Thirty-nine respondents (17%) experienced daily conflicts over case prioritisation. Minor differences were observed in how respondents perceived their own prioritisation, that of other specialties, and the prioritisation of hypothetical cases. Daily conflicts were associated with concerns about compromised patient safety (odds ratio [OR] 8.05 and 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-63.5 for agreeing vs. strongly disagreeing/disagreeing), whereas greater perceived resource availability was associated with fewer conflicts (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96).
conclusionsPerceived threats to patient safety and resource scarcity were associated with daily prioritisation conflicts. Although respondents frequently suspected over-prioritisation by other specialties, observed differences in prioritisation between the responsible specialty and others were small. Further research on shared prioritisation protocols and resource allocation, including international comparisons across health-care systems and cultures, is warranted.
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.