Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov 29;5(1):204.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0376-4.

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

Johannes Morche  1 , Tim Mathes  2 , Dawid Pieper  3
Affiliations

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

Johannes Morche et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Clinical outcome; Patient safety; Quality assurance; Surgeon volume; Systematic review of systematic reviews; Volume-outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Luft HS. The relation between surgical volume and mortality: an exploration of causal factors and alternative models. Med care. 1980;18:940–959. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198009000-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N engl j med. 1979;301:1364–1369. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197912203012503. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gruen RL, Pitt V, Green S, et al. The effect of provider case volume on cancer mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. CA cancer j clin. 2009;59:192–211. doi: 10.3322/caac.20018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N engl j med. 2002;346:1128–1137. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa012337. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N engl j med. 2003;349:2117–2127. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa035205. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms