SynthesisBJS open2026
Quality improvement interventions in surgical oncology: systematic review of international studies.
Synthesis in BJS open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubstantial variation in surgical care and outcomes has been identified by quality assurance initiatives. Quality improvement (QI) interventions have the potential to address these disparities. This paper aimed to assess the types of QI interventions that have been designed, implemented, and evaluated in surgical oncology.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted to identify studies on QI interventions published between January 2000 and September 2025. Studies reporting the impact of the QI intervention on predefined quality deficits in clinical outcomes or care and process measures were selected. Data on study design, QI methodology, quality deficits, intervention types, and outcomes were extracted. Results were summarized using narrative synthesis and appraised using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias tool.
resultsOf 11 373 studies, 109 were included. The majority were in the USA (48 (44.0%)), followed by Canada (20 (18.3%)), and the UK (11 (10.1%)). The commonest tumour types were gynaecological (22 (20.2%)) and colorectal (20 (18.3%)). The commonest quality deficits addressed were postoperative complications (22 (20.2%)) and prolonged length of stay (12 (11.0%)). One study was conducted globally, 6 nationally, 20 regionally, and 82 locally. Among randomized clinical trials, only 2 of 12 (16%) demonstrated a positive effect compared with 86 of 97 (89%) non-randomized studies. Only 28 (25.7%) studies referenced specific QI methodologies, most commonly the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle (10 (9.2%)). QI interventions encompassed care pathway standardization, perioperative care bundles, audit, and feedback, combined with surgical skills workshops and digital tools, including checklists, and care coordination initiatives. Most studies were uncontrolled before-and-after studies (74 (67.9%)) and were classified as low quality.
conclusionsThere are limited high-quality evaluations of QI interventions in the literature. Key gaps include interventions to improve equitable access to surgical care. Comprehensive QI studies leveraging large-scale, multidisciplinary collaborations and robust methodologies are needed to realize potential gains in surgical oncology care.
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.