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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Cancer Incidence in Five Continents
(1966) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85849-9 · Cited by 5,936
Cited by
Gouma, D. J., van Geenen, R. C. I., van Gulik, T. M., de Haan, R. J., de Wit, L. T., Busch, O. R. C., & Obertop, H. (2000) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-200012000-00007 · Cited by 836
Sheridan, M. B., Ward, J., Guthrie, J. A., Spencer, J. A., Craven, C. M., Wilson, D., Guillou, P. J., & Robinson, P. J. (1999) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.173.3.10470884 · Cited by 149
Metadata
- Authors
- Neoptolemos, J. P., Russell, R. C. G., Bramhall, S., & Theis, B.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.