SynthesisBJS open2026
Hospital and surgeon volume versus outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery: umbrella review and meta-analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn inverse relationship between surgical volume and outcomes has been suggested, with higher-volume hospitals and surgeons achieving better results, prompting debate over the centralization of surgical services. However, minimum volume thresholds are unclear, and volume is a poor proxy for quality. Despite the significant global burden of colorectal cancer, the benefits of high-volume care remain uncertain. This umbrella review synthesized the evidence on volume-outcome associations in colorectal surgery.
methodsAn umbrella review (PRISMA 2020) was conducted to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the hospital/surgeon volume-outcome relationship in colorectal cancer. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched to 1 October 2025. Volume definitions and outcomes were extracted and meta-analysed by subgroup. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews were used for analysis of bias.
resultsA total of 150 unique records was identified, with 10 systematic reviews meeting the inclusion criteria. High- versus low-volume hospitals demonstrated an inverse relationship in terms of postoperative mortality following resection for rectal cancer (fixed- and random-effects models: odds ratio 0.73, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.64 to 0.82), colon cancer (fixed-effect model: odds ratio 0.74, 0.70 to 0.78; random-effects model: odds ratio 0.75, 0.69 to 0.81), and colorectal cancer (fixed- and random-effects models: odds ratio 0.77, 0.67 to 0.88). High- versus low-volume surgeons demonstrated an inverse relationship with respect to postoperative mortality following resection for rectal cancer (fixed- and random-effects models: odds ratio 0.69, 0.59 to 0.81), colon cancer (fixed-effect model: odds ratio 0.70, 0.63 to 0.77; random-effects model: odds ratio 0.68, 0.55 to 0.85), and colorectal cancer (fixed- and random-effects models: odds ratio 0.67, 0.60 to 0.74). There were no consistent significant differences in rates of the secondary outcomes (anastomotic leak rate, permanent stoma formation, local recurrence rate, rate of abdominoperineal excision of the rectum).
conclusionHigh-volume hospitals and surgeons are associated with both improved short- and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. However, a specific cut-off definition for high- versus low-volume hospitals and surgeons is yet to be elucidated owing to the heterogeneity of existing volume definitions. Future studies are required to confirm a threshold for this dose-response relationship.
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.