↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 2,062)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
50 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
48 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
215 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
Summary News Blogs Policy documents Twitter Dimensions citations
Title
Relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes: a systematic review of systematic reviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0376-4
Pubmed ID
27899141
Authors

Johannes Morche, Tim Mathes, Dawid Pieper

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 194 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 18%
Other 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Student > Master 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 43 22%
Unknown 49 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 62 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 434. 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 16 May 2023.
All research outputs
#57,793
of 23,770,218 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 2,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,445
of 420,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,770,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 420,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.