The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The surgeon volume-outcome relationship has been discussed for many years and its existence or nonexistence is of importance for various reasons. A lot of empirical work has been published on it. We aimed to summarize systematic reviews in order to present current evidence. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR), and health technology assessment websites were searched up to October 2015 for systematic reviews on the surgeon volume-outcome relationship. Reviews were critically appraised, and results were extracted and synthesized by type of surgical procedure/condition. RESULTS: Thirty-two reviews reporting on 15 surgical procedures/conditions were included. Methodological quality of included systematic reviews assessed with the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) was generally moderate to high albeit included literature partly neglected considering methodological issues specific to volume-outcome relationship. Most reviews tend to support the presence of a surgeon volume-outcome relationship. This is most clear-cut in colorectal cancer, bariatric surgery, and breast cancer where reviews of high quality show large effects. CONCLUSIONS: When taking into account its limitations, this overview can serve as an informational basis for decision makers. Our results seem to support a positive volume-outcome relationship for most procedures/conditions. However, forthcoming reviews should pay more attention to methodology specific to volume-outcome relationship. Due to the lack of information, any numerical recommendations for minimum volume thresholds are not possible. Further research is needed for this issue.
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
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,657
Hospital Volume and Surgical Mortality in the United States
Birkmeyer, J. D., Siewers, A. E., Finlayson, E. V. A., Stukel, T. A., Lucas, F. L., Batista, I., Welch, H. G., & Wennberg, D. E. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa012337 · Cited by 4,999
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., & Bouter, L. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 · Cited by 4,374
Surgeon Volume and Operative Mortality in the United States
Birkmeyer, J. D., Stukel, T. A., Siewers, A. E., Goodney, P. P., Wennberg, D. E., & Lucas, F. L. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa035205 · Cited by 3,106
Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (1998) · Cited by 2,096
Should Operations Be Regionalized?: The Empirical Relation between Surgical Volume and Mortality
Luft, H. S., Bunker, J. P., & Enthoven, A. C. (1979) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197912203012503 · Cited by 1,759
Cited by
Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery
Vonlanthen, R., Lodge, P., Barkun, J. S., Farges, O., Rogiers, X., Soreide, K., Kehlet, H., Reynolds, J. V., Käser, S. A., Naredi, P., et al. (2018) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002965 · Cited by 274
Laddu, D., Neeland, I. J., Carnethon, M., Stanford, F. C., Mongraw-Chaffin, M., Barone Gibbs, B., Ndumele, C. E., Longenecker, C. T., Chung, M. L., Rao, G., et al. (2024) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001221 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Morche, J., Mathes, T., & Pieper, D.
- Venue
- Systematic Reviews
- Published
- 2016-11-29
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 204-204
- ISSN
- 2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2557514837
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 63
- FWCI
- 5.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13643-016-0376-4
- The paper
- Morche, J., Mathes, T., & Pieper, D. (2016). Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0376-4
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.
