ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
The Impact of Best Practice Meetings on Outcomes of Esophageal Cancer Surgery in the Netherlands.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational best practice meetings, combining transparent hospital-level benchmarking and peer-to-peer learning, were introduced in the Netherlands in 2018 to improve outcomes after esophagectomy. This study aimed to investigate the impact of these meetings on national outcomes following esophageal cancer surgery.
methodsThis nationwide population-based cohort study included patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer registered in the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit between 2011 and 2023. Best practice meetings were organized annually from 2018 onwards, except in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was the national anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary outcomes included qualitative outcomes and actions after the meetings, assessed using a structured questionnaire. Multilevel multivariable logistic regression compared outcomes 2 years before and after the meetings held in 2018, 2019, and 2021.
resultsA total of 9166 patients were included. Anastomotic leakage increased from 18.6% in 2011 to 20.3% in 2017, then decreased to 14.0% in 2023. Significant overall reductions were observed after the meetings of 2019 (odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.82) and 2021 (odds ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.99). Declines were observed in both cervical and intrathoracic anastomoses. All centers reported implementing improvement actions after the meetings, with 71% rating the meetings as positive and 29% as very positive. Actions included structured site visits and adjustments to surgical techniques, protocols, and care pathways, with key focus areas including anastomotic leakage, lymphadenectomy, and length of hospital stay.
conclusionsAnnual best practice meetings were associated with outcome-oriented actions and significant reductions in national anastomotic leakage rates, suggesting that transparent peer-to-peer sharing of hospital-level outcome data may improve outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42816698What 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.