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

Abstract

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsMedline, 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.ResultsThirty-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.ConclusionsWhen 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0376-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

“…The SR/MA's quality seems to be low in many fields of medicine. Among studies published in medicine to September 2019, in which the AMSTAR 2 was used as an instrument to evaluate the quality of SR/MA, 23 of 31 papers produced results similar to our study . In the six studies, the methodological quality of most (around 60%) of SRs was critical low to low .…”

Hospital volume and short‐term outcomes after cytoreductive nephrectomy

“…Previous investigators have demonstrated the volume-outcome association in many major surgeries. [10][11][12] In the field of urology, numerous studies focused on radical cystectomy and radical prostatectomy. 13,14 However, there is a paucity of data on the association between surgical volume and outcomes after nephrectomy.…”

“…prostatectomy. [10][11][12][13][14] When it comes to the volume-outcome association in nephrectomy, studies in the literature almost exclusively focus on radical nephrectomy (RN) or partial nephrectomy (PN) for nonmetastatic RCC. 15 It is well documented that RN, PN, and CN have different surgical complexities and perioperative safety profiles.…”

Initiatief Comprehensive Prostate Cancer Network (CPCN) in Zuidoost Nederland

“…Dat bij het vaker uitvoeren van complexe behandelingen, zoals een robotgeassisteerde radicale prostatectomie (RARP), de ervaring van het chirurgische team groter wordt en daardoor de operatie-uitkomsten beter zullen zijn, is aannemelijk [4]. De leercurve voor de complexe (robot)operatie is immers lang en dat betekent dat je veel ingrepen moet doen om ten aanzien van uitkomsten een plateaufase te bereiken.…”