↓ Skip to main content

Hospital Teaching Status and Patients’ Outcomes After Colon Cancer Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Hospital Teaching Status and Patients’ Outcomes After Colon Cancer Surgery
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00268-018-4580-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia T. van Groningen, Eric H. Eddes, Hans F. J. Fabry, Marc W. A. van Tilburg, Ernst J. van Nieuwenhoven, Yvonne Snel, Perla J. Marang‐van de Mheen, Mirre E. de Noo, Dutch Surgical Colorectal Cancer Audit Group and the Co‐operating General Hospitals

Abstract

It is increasingly accepted that quality of colon cancer surgery might be secured by combining volume standards with audit implementation. However, debate remains about other structural factors also influencing this quality, such as hospital teaching status. This study evaluates short-term outcomes after colon cancer surgery of patients treated in general, teaching or academic hospitals. All patients (n = 23,593) registered in the Dutch Colorectal Audit undergoing colon cancer surgery between 2011 and 2014 were included. Patients were divided into groups based on teaching status of their hospital. Main outcome measures were serious complications, failure to rescue (FTR) and 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression models on these outcome measures and with hospital teaching status as primary determinant were used, adjusted for case-mix, year of surgery and hospital volume. Patients treated in teaching and academic hospitals showed higher adjusted serious complication rates, compared to patients treated in general hospitals (odds ratio 1.25 95% CI [1.11-1.39] and OR 1.23 [1.05-1.46]). However, patients treated in teaching hospitals had lower adjusted FTR rates than patients treated in general hospitals (OR 0.63 [0.44-0.89]). However, for all outcomes there was considerable between-hospitals variation within each type of teaching status. On average, patients treated in general hospitals had lower serious complication rates, but patients treated in teaching hospitals had more favorable FTR rates. Given the hospital variation within each hospital teaching type, it is possible to deliver excellent care regardless of the hospital teaching type.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Sports and Recreations 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Unknown 7 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,494,717
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,241
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,738
of 331,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#32
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.