Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 217

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relation of Hospital Volume to Colostomy Rates and Survival for Patients With Rectal Cancer

Hodgson, D. C., Zhang, W., Zaslavsky, A. M., Fuchs, C. S., Wright, W. E., Ayanian, J. Z.·2003·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality after some types of cancer surgery is inversely related to the number of operations performed at a hospital (i.e., hospital volume). This study assessed the association of hospital volume with colostomy rates and survival for patients with rectal cancer in a large representative cohort identified from the California Cancer Registry. METHODS: We identified 7257 patients diagnosed from January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1997, with stage I-III rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Registry data were linked to hospital discharge abstracts and ZIP-code-level data from the 1990 U.S. Census. Associations of hospital volume with permanent colostomy and 30-day mortality were assessed with the Mantel-Haenszel trend test and logistic regression. Overall survival was examined with the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Multivariable analyses adjusted for demographic and clinical variables and patient clustering within hospitals. All tests of statistical significance were two-sided. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses across decreasing quartiles of hospital volume, we observed statistically significant increases in colostomy rates (29.5%, 31.8%, 35.2%, and 36.6%; P<.001) and in 30-day postoperative mortality (1.6%, 1.6%, 2.9%, and 4.8%; P<.001) and a decrease in 2-year survival (83.7%, 83.2%, 80.9%, and 76.6%; P<.001). The adjusted risks of permanent colostomy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10 to 1.70), 30-day mortality (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.41 to 4.93), and 2-year mortality (hazard ratio = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.44) were greater for patients at hospitals in the lowest volume quartile than for patients at hospitals in the highest volume quartile. Stratification by tumor stage and comorbidity index did not appreciably affect the results. Adjusted colostomy rates varied statistically significantly (P<.001) among individual hospitals independent of volume. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal cancer patients who underwent surgery at high-volume hospitals were less likely to have a permanent colostomy and had better survival rates than those treated in low-volume hospitals. Identifying processes of care that contribute to these differences may improve patients' outcomes in all hospitals.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/95.10.708

Cites

2 of 2 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 217

Metadata

Authors
Hodgson, D. C., Zhang, W., Zaslavsky, A. M., Fuchs, C. S., Wright, W. E., & Ayanian, J. Z.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2003-05-21
Volume
95
Issue
10
Pages
708-716
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2143423494
Cited by
217
References
2
FWCI
7.06
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: Relation of Hospital Volume to Colostomy Rates and Survival for Patients With Rectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/95.10.708
The paper
Hodgson, D. C., Zhang, W., Zaslavsky, A. M., Fuchs, C. S., Wright, W. E., & Ayanian, J. Z. (2003). Relation of Hospital Volume to Colostomy Rates and Survival for Patients With Rectal Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.10.708

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.