Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 608

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome

Chowdhury, M M, Dagash, H, Pierro, A·2007·British Journal of Surgery
DOI 10.1002/bjs.5714
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background and methods: Volume of surgery and specialization may affect patient outcome. Articles examining the effects of one or more of three variables (hospital volume of surgery, surgeon volume and specialization) on outcome (measured by length of hospital stay, mortality and complication rate) were analysed. Reviews, opinion articles and observational studies were excluded. The methodological quality of each study was assessed, a correlation between the variables analysed and the outcome accepted if it was significant. Results: The search identified 55 391 articles published between 1957 and 2002; 1075 were relevant to the study, of which 163 (9 904 850 patients) fulfilled the entry criteria. These 163 examined 42 different surgical procedures, spanning 13 surgical specialities. None were randomized and 40 investigated more than one variable. Hospital volume was reported in 127 studies; high-volume hospitals had significantly better outcomes in 74·2 per cent of studies, but this effect was limited in prospective studies (40 per cent). Surgeon volume was reported in 58 studies; high-volume surgeons had significantly better outcomes in 74 per cent of studies. Specialization was reported in 22 studies; specialist surgeons had significantly better outcomes than general surgeons in 91 per cent of studies. The benefit of high surgeon volume and specialization varied in magnitude between specialities. Conclusion: High surgeon volume and specialization are associated with improved patient outcome, while high hospital volume is of limited benefit.

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.5714

Cites

115 of 115 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

Cites

Cited by

See all 608

Metadata

Authors
Chowdhury, M. M., Dagash, H., & Pierro, A.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2007-01-29
Volume
94
Issue
2
Pages
145-161
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
DOI
10.1002/bjs.5714
OpenAlex
W2147944213
Cited by
608
References
115
FWCI
5.45
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

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.