Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Differences in outcomes of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery across Europe

Dikken, J L, van Sandick, J W, Allum, W H, Johansson, J, Jensen, L S, Putter, H, Coupland, V H, Wouters, M W J M, Lemmens, V E P, van de Velde, C J H·2013·Journal of British Surgery

Abstract

Background: In several European countries, centralization of oesophagogastric cancer surgery has been realized and clinical audits initiated. The present study was designed to evaluate differences in resection rates, outcomes and annual hospital volumes between these countries, and to analyse the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes. Methods: National data were obtained from cancer registries or clinical audits in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and England. Differences in outcomes were analysed between countries and between hospital volume categories, adjusting for available case-mix factors. Results: Between 2004 and 2009, 10 854 oesophagectomies and 9010 gastrectomies were registered. Resection rates in England were 18·2 and 21·6 per cent for oesophageal and gastric cancer respectively, compared with 28·5–29·9 and 41·4–41·9 per cent in the Netherlands and Denmark (P < 0·001). The adjusted 30-day mortality rate after oesophagectomy was lowest in Sweden (1·9 per cent). After gastrectomy, the adjusted 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the Netherlands (6·9 per cent) than in Sweden (3·5 per cent; P = 0·017) and Denmark (4·3 per cent; P = 0·029). Increasing hospital volume was associated with a lower 30-day mortality rate after oesophagectomy (odds ratio 0·55 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·42 to 0·72) for at least 41 versus 1–10 procedures per year) and gastrectomy (odds ratio 0·64 (0·41 to 0·99) for at least 21 versus 1–10 procedures per year). Conclusion: Hospitals performing larger numbers of oesophagogastric cancer resections had a lower 30-day mortality rate. Differences in outcomes between several European countries could not be explained by differences in hospital volumes. To understand these differences in outcomes and resection rates, with reliable case-mix adjustments, a uniform European upper gastrointestinal cancer audit with recording of standardized data is warranted.

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.8966

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.

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 165

Metadata

Authors
Dikken, J. L., van Sandick, J. W., Allum, W. H., Johansson, J., Jensen, L. S., Putter, H., Coupland, V. H., Wouters, M. W. J. M., Lemmens, V. E. P., & van de Velde, C. J. H.
Venue
Journal of British Surgery
Published
2013-01-01
Volume
100
Issue
1
Pages
83-94
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W1732947965
Cited by
165
References
0
FWCI
14.43
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: Differences in outcomes of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery across Europe. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.8966
The paper
Dikken, J. L., van Sandick, J. W., Allum, W. H., Johansson, J., Jensen, L. S., Putter, H., Coupland, V. H., Wouters, M. W. J. M., Lemmens, V. E. P., & van de Velde, C. J. H. (2013). Differences in outcomes of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery across Europe. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8966

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.