ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Geospatial analysis in addressing surgical care inequities: A scoping review and methodological guide.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
Surgical system decision-makers are confronted with the challenge of justifying investment in new surgical facilities against expanding the capacity of existing ones, and if worthwhile, where to place such new facilities. Geospatial analysis can provide findings to inform this decision. This scoping review examines how geospatial analysis has been used to identify geographically defined populations experiencing an inequitable access to surgical care to inform the care structures and processes. A comprehensive literature search was performed in November 2024 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed databases for English-language peer-reviewed journal articles that carried out geospatial analysis of surgical care and identified geographic locations in need of resource allocations. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted the data. Studies were summarized based on their findings and analytical methods. Of the nineteen studies included, three types of findings were presented: 1) two studies determined optimal locations for a new surgical facility; 2) six studies recommended strengthening the capacity of existing facilities after ruling out the need to build new ones, and 3) eleven studies identified locations that should be prioritized for resource allocation (e.g., more surgeons) without examining the need for new facilities or the possibility of strengthening existing ones. Gaps in the literature were identified to include a lack of explicit justification and identification of optimal sites for ambulatory surgical centers, use of dated registry data and potentially unreliable self-report data, and a lack of using the most appropriate geospatial techniques to answer surgical care planning questions according to the local context. Practical recommendations on geospatial analysis in surgical research are provided.
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.