Benchmarking: a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons in surgery
- PMID: 37093075
- PMCID: PMC10389472
- DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000212
Benchmarking: a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons in surgery
Abstract
Introduction: Benchmarking, a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons, is a recent concept in surgery. The objectives of this review are to examine the concept, definition, and evolution of benchmarking and its application in surgery.
Methods: The literature about benchmarking was reviewed through an ever-narrowing search strategy, commencing from the concept, definition, and evolution of benchmarking to the application of benchmarking and experiences of benchmarking in surgery. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Science Direct databases were searched until 20 September 2022, in the English language according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.
Results: In the first phase of the literature search, the development of benchmarking was identified. The definitions of benchmarking evolved from a surveying term to a novel quality-improvement tool to assess the best achievable results in surgery. In the second phase, a total of 23 studies were identified about benchmarking in surgery, including esophagectomy, hepatic surgery, pancreatic surgery, rectum resection, and bariatric surgery. All studies were multicenter analyses from national, international, or global expert centers. Most studies (87.0%) adopted the definition that benchmark was the 75th percentile of the median values of centers. Performance metrics to define benchmarks were clinically relevant intraoperative and postoperative outcome indicators.
Conclusion: Benchmarking in surgery is a novel quality-improvement tool to define and measure the best achievable results, establishing a meaningful reference to evaluate surgical performance.
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
There are no conflicts of interest.
Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.
Figures
Similar articles
-
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100. Epidemiol Prev. 2013. PMID: 23851286 Italian.
-
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 33075160 Free PMC article.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11701100
-
The quantity, quality and findings of network meta-analyses evaluating the effectiveness of GLP-1 RAs for weight loss: a scoping review.Health Technol Assess. 2025 Jun 25:1-73. doi: 10.3310/SKHT8119. Online ahead of print. Health Technol Assess. 2025. PMID: 40580049 Free PMC article.
-
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016. PMID: 27532314
Cited by
-
Placenta segmentation redefined: review of deep learning integration of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound imaging.Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art. 2025 Jul 15;8(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s42492-025-00197-8. Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art. 2025. PMID: 40663247 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Recommendations for the implementation and conduct of multidisciplinary team meetings for those providing endometriosis and adenomyosis care - a Delphi consensus of the European Endometriosis League (EEL).Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2024 Sep;16(3):337-350. doi: 10.52054/FVVO.16.3.038. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2024. PMID: 39357865 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the SwedeAmp database: Focus on coverage and amputation level rates.Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2024 Nov 19;7(2):44089. doi: 10.33137/cpoj.v7i2.44089. eCollection 2024. Can Prosthet Orthot J. 2024. PMID: 39990240 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Gero D, Muller X, Staiger RD, et al. . How to establish benchmarks for surgical outcomes?: a checklist based on an international expert Delphi consensus. Ann Surg 2022;275:115–20. - PubMed
-
- Staiger RD, Schwandt H, Puhan MA, et al. . Improving surgical outcomes through benchmarking. Br J Surg 2019;106:59–64. - PubMed
-
- Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. Definition of Benchmark. Oxford University Press. Accessed 21 September 2022. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/benchmark_...
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical