Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 327

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Low mortality following resection for pancreatic and periampullary tumours in 1026 patients: UK survey of specialist pancreatic units

Neoptolemos, J. P., Russell, R. C. G., Bramhall, S., Theis, B.·1997·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background Recent studies have suggested that the mortality rate from pancreatic resection for cancer is high in the UK compared with that in published series. A survey of specialist units was conducted to determine whether the results differed from those in general units. Methods The postoperative outcome following resection of pancreatic and periampullary tumours was analysed from specialist units in the UK and compared with that of other multi-institutional and large single institutional studies published recently (1900–1996). Results A total of 1026 resections was reported from 21 units (33 surgeons). Postoperative complications necessitated reoperation in 57 patients (6 per cent) and there were 58 deaths (6 per cent) in hospital. Pylorus-preserving resections were performed in 102 (41 per cent) of 250 patients with ampullary adenocarcinoma undergoing a major right-sided resection and in 123 (32 per cent) of 381 patients with ductal adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas undergoing right-sided resection (χ2 = 4·01, 1 d.f., 2P = 0·04). The mean number of resections for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was 3·41 (range 1·0–7·1) per institution per year. Combining these data with those from the nine published series from specialist units, there was a lower mortality rate compared with the results of five published general surveys (median 4·9 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (ci) 3·1–8·0 per cent) versus 9·8 (2·5–23·2 per cent), 2P < 0·01) and specialist units had a higher volume caseload (median 5·5 (95 per cent c.i. 4·2–8·1) versus 0·5 (−0·2–2·0) cases per institution per year, 2P < 0·001). Postoperative mortality was related to caseload both for the UK (χ2 = 7·17, 1 d.f., P < 0·0l) and for all the data combined (χ2 = 40·4, 1 d.f., P < 0·0001). Conclusion The results from specialist units in the UK compare favourably with those from specialist units outside the UK and are superior to those from non-specialist units. The mortality rate is generally lower in units with a higher caseload.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.1800841010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 327

Metadata

Authors
Neoptolemos, J. P., Russell, R. C. G., Bramhall, S., & Theis, B.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
1997-10
Volume
84
Issue
10
Pages
1370-1376
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W1982517559
Cited by
327
References
1
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Low mortality following resection for pancreatic and periampullary tumours in 1026 patients: UK survey of specialist pancreatic units. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.1800841010
The paper
Neoptolemos, J. P., Russell, R. C. G., Bramhall, S., & Theis, B. (1997). Low mortality following resection for pancreatic and periampullary tumours in 1026 patients: UK survey of specialist pancreatic units. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800841010

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.