ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Comparing Resident Team Performance in Complex Surgical Oncology: A Single-Institution Cohort Study.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTeam dynamics influence team performance and patient outcomes in surgery, yet data on resident-led teams are scarce. This study aimed to compare patient outcomes across resident-led teams in complex surgical oncology. We hypothesized that patient outcomes would vary by team assignment.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of resident-led teams who contributed more than 10 surgical oncology operations (colectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, or thyroidectomy) to the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project registry at a single university-based hospital (2018-2025). The primary outcome was presence of any adverse event, including mortality and postoperative complications. Length of stay and 30-day readmissions were also examined. Mixed-effects regression estimated expected outcome probabilities for each patient. For each team, observed-minus-expected (O-E) outcome rates were calculated to assess performance.
resultsIn total, 145 teams cared for a median of 22 patients (interquartile interval 16- 27; n = 2919). Five teams demonstrated poor performance based on risk-adjusted adverse event rates (O-E rates: 6.9% and 22.3%). A total of 13 teams had significantly longer risk-adjusted length of stays than expected (O-E between 0.4 and 3.5 days), and seven teams had shorter risk-adjusted length of stays than expected (O-E between -1.1 and -0.7 days). Three teams had higher risk-adjusted readmission rates than expected (O-E between 4.9% and 6.8%). Two teams performed poorly across all three outcomes.
conclusionsVariation in team performance can be measured using valid and reliable risk-adjusted patient outcomes in complex surgical oncology. This may provide meaningful feedback with benchmarking to identify teams that require more supervision.
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.