The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Small-Area Variations in the Use of Common Surgical Procedures: An International Comparison of New England, England, and Norway
Abstract
We examined the incidence of seven common surgical procedures in seven hospital service areas in southern Norway, in 21 districts in the West Midlands of the United Kingdom, and in the 18 most heavily populated hospital service areas in Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island. Although surgical rates were higher in the New England states than in the United Kingdom or Norway, there was no greater degree of variability in the rates of surgery among the service areas within the three New England states. Hernia repair was more variable in England (P less than 0.05) and hysterectomy in Norway (P less than 0.05) than in the other countries. There was consistency among countries in the rank order of variability for most procedures: tonsillectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, hysterectomy, and prostatectomy varied more from area to area than did appendectomy, hernia repair, or cholecystectomy. The degree of variation generally appeared to be more characteristic of the procedure than of the country in which it was performed. Thus, differences among countries in the methods of organizing and financing care appear to have little relation to the intrinsic variability in the incidence of common surgical procedures among hospital service areas in these countries. Despite the differences in average rates of use, the degrees of controversy and uncertainty concerning the indications for these procedures seem to be similar among clinicians in all three countries.
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
Cited by
League Tables and Their Limitations: Statistical Issues in Comparisons of Institutional Performance
Goldstein, H., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983325 · Cited by 1,069
Kristensen, S. D., Laut, K. G., Fajadet, J., Kaifoszova, Z., Kala, P., Di Mario, C., Wijns, W., Clemmensen, P., Agladze, V., Antoniades, L., et al. (2014) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht529 · Cited by 346
Miller, M., Azrael, D., & Barber, C. (2012) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124636 · Cited by 265
A three-country comparison of psychotropic medication prevalence in youth
Zito, J. M., Safer, D. J., Berg, L. T. D. J.-V. D., Janhsen, K., Fegert, J. M., Gardner, J. F., Glaeske, G., & Valluri, S. C. (2008) · Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health · doi:10.1186/1753-2000-2-26 · Cited by 201
A Historical Overview of Health Disparities and the Potential of eHealth Solutions
Gibbons, M. C. (2005) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7.5.e50 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- McPherson, K., Wennberg, J. E., Hovind, O. B., & Clifford, P.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1982-11-18
- Volume
- 307
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 1310-1314
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2050857666
- Cited by
- 822
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.00
- 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: Small-Area Variations in the Use of Common Surgical Procedures: An International Comparison of New England, England, and Norway. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198211183072104
- The paper
- McPherson, K., Wennberg, J. E., Hovind, O. B., & Clifford, P. (1982). Small-Area Variations in the Use of Common Surgical Procedures: An International Comparison of New England, England, and Norway. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198211183072104
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.