Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics

Open access
Jeevan, R., Cromwell, D. A., Trivella, M., Lawrence, G., Kearins, O., Pereira, J., Sheppard, C., Caddy, C. M., van der Meulen, J. H. P.·2012·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether rate of reoperation after breast conserving surgery is associated with patients' characteristics and investigate whether reoperation rates vary among English NHS trusts. DESIGN: Cohort study using patient level data from hospital episode statistics. SETTING: English NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Adult women who had breast conserving surgery between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reoperation rates after primary breast conserving surgery within 3 months, adjusted using logistic regression for tumour type, age, comorbidity, and socioeconomic deprivation. Tumours were grouped by whether a carcinoma in situ component was coded at the time of the primary breast conserving surgery. RESULTS: 55,297 women had primary breast conserving surgery in 156 NHS trusts during the three year period. 11,032 (20.0%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 20.3%) women had at least one reoperation. 10,212 (18.5%, 18.2% to 18.8%) had one reoperation only; of these, 5943 (10.7%, 10.5% to 11.0%) had another breast conserving procedure and 4269 (7.7%, 7.5% to 7.9%) had a mastectomy. Of the 45,793 women with isolated invasive disease, 8229 (18.0%) had at least one reoperation. In comparison, 2803 (29.5%) of the 9504 women with carcinoma in situ had at least one reoperation (adjusted odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.0). Substantial differences were found in the adjusted reoperation rates among the NHS trusts (10th and 90th centiles 12.2% and 30.2%). CONCLUSION: One in five women who had breast conserving surgery in England had a reoperation. Reoperation was nearly twice as likely when the tumour had a carcinoma in situ component coded. Women should be informed of this reoperation risk when deciding on the type of surgical treatment of their breast cancer.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.e4505

Cites

3 of 3 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 347

Metadata

Authors
Jeevan, R., Cromwell, D. A., Trivella, M., Lawrence, G., Kearins, O., Pereira, J., Sheppard, C., Caddy, C. M., & van der Meulen, J. H. P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-07-12
Volume
345
Issue
jul12 2
Pages
e4505-e4505
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163853186
Cited by
347
References
3
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.e4505
The paper
Jeevan, R., Cromwell, D. A., Trivella, M., Lawrence, G., Kearins, O., Pereira, J., Sheppard, C., Caddy, C. M., & van der Meulen, J. H. P. (2012). Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4505

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.