Floris F E Bruinsma,Simon W Nienhuijs,Ronald S L Liem,Jan Willem M Greve,Perla J Marang-van de Mheen,
BACKGROUNDMetabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) quality registries monitor various outcomes, enabling the assessment of hospital performance in comparison with national benchmarks. However, if there is considerable between-surgeon outcome variation, surgeon-level feedback may be better suited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors contribute to the variation in outcomes after MBS.METHODSAll primary procedures registered in the Dutch MBS quality registry between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 were included. Outcomes included severe postoperative complications, reoperation, prolonged length of stay (LOS), readmission, textbook outcome, and achieving ≥25% total weight loss within 1 year. Multilevel logistic regression models were built for each outcome, including all available patient characteristics, operating surgeon, and hospital, to determine the variance explained by patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors.RESULTSIn total, 30 610 patients were included, operated on by 144 surgeons in 19 hospitals. Hospital-level factors contributed most to the explained variance for all outcomes, ranging from 59.6% for reoperation to 90.3% for prolonged LOS. Surgeon-level factors explained less variance, ranging from 3.2% for prolonged LOS to 28.2% for reoperation. Patient characteristics explained the least, ranging from 4.4% for textbook outcome to 13.1% for severe postoperative complications.CONCLUSIONVariation in outcomes is mostly explained by hospital factors, rather than surgeon factors, supporting hospital-based performance feedback. The results suggest that the pre- and postoperative trajectory and perioperative care may affect MBS outcomes more than patient characteristics or surgical team performance.
{"title":"Variation in outcomes after metabolic bariatric surgery: multilevel analysis to assess the contribution of patient, surgeon, and hospital factors.","authors":"Floris F E Bruinsma,Simon W Nienhuijs,Ronald S L Liem,Jan Willem M Greve,Perla J Marang-van de Mheen, ","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf186","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDMetabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) quality registries monitor various outcomes, enabling the assessment of hospital performance in comparison with national benchmarks. However, if there is considerable between-surgeon outcome variation, surgeon-level feedback may be better suited. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors contribute to the variation in outcomes after MBS.METHODSAll primary procedures registered in the Dutch MBS quality registry between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2023 were included. Outcomes included severe postoperative complications, reoperation, prolonged length of stay (LOS), readmission, textbook outcome, and achieving ≥25% total weight loss within 1 year. Multilevel logistic regression models were built for each outcome, including all available patient characteristics, operating surgeon, and hospital, to determine the variance explained by patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-level factors.RESULTSIn total, 30 610 patients were included, operated on by 144 surgeons in 19 hospitals. Hospital-level factors contributed most to the explained variance for all outcomes, ranging from 59.6% for reoperation to 90.3% for prolonged LOS. Surgeon-level factors explained less variance, ranging from 3.2% for prolonged LOS to 28.2% for reoperation. Patient characteristics explained the least, ranging from 4.4% for textbook outcome to 13.1% for severe postoperative complications.CONCLUSIONVariation in outcomes is mostly explained by hospital factors, rather than surgeon factors, supporting hospital-based performance feedback. The results suggest that the pre- and postoperative trajectory and perioperative care may affect MBS outcomes more than patient characteristics or surgical team performance.","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145215795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Justin C R Wormald,Matthew D Gardiner,Christina Jerosch-Herold,Jonathan Cook,Rafael Pinedo Villanueva,Ciaron O'Hanlon,Naomi Vides,Gianluca Fabiano,Scott Parsons,Loretta Davies,Heidi Fletcher,Molly Glaze,Cushla Cooper,Dominic Power,Abhilash Jain,David Beard,
BACKGROUNDDigital nerves provide sensibility to the fingers. They are commonly injured through accidental sharp laceration. The aim of the NEON (Nerve rEpair Or Not) study was to investigate whether microsurgical suture repair of lacerated digital nerves is superior to nerve alignment alone without suture repair.METHODSA two-arm, parallel group, double-blind, multicentre RCT was undertaken over 2 years. Participants with suspected unilateral digital nerve injury underwent surgical exploration and were randomized to microsurgical suture repair or nerve alignment alone. The primary outcome was the Impact of Hand Nerve Disorders (I-HaND v2) patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at 12 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes assessed were: objective neurosensory and functional recovery; health-related quality of life to examine cost-effectiveness; complications of surgery and clinically problematic neuroma rates (Elliot score). Both participants and assessors were blind to allocation.RESULTSA total of 122 adults were randomized to microsurgical suture repair (n = 61) or nerve alignment alone (n = 61). Primary outcome data using the I-HaND (v2) were available for 106 participants (87%) at 12 months. There were no statistically significant differences in I-HaND scores at all time points, including the 12-month primary end point (15.9 versus 20.2, P = 0.09; 95% c.i. [-0.9, 10.8]). There were also no differences in all secondary outcome measures, including Patient Evaluation Measure and EQ-5D-5L scores at 12 months. Complications were similar at 6 weeks and 12 months. The trial was closed early by the funder owing to slow recruitment and did not reach the intended sample size.CONCLUSIONBased on the available data from the NEON trial, there is no evidence to support the beneficial effect of suture repair over nerve alignment alone for isolated digital nerve injury. This multicentre RCT can be used to inform future trials, inform patients and guide clinical practice.FUNDINGNIHR Health Technology Assessment (NIHR127807-18/37).TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERISRCTN16211574.
{"title":"The NEON (Nerve rEpair Or Not) trial: a randomized controlled trial of microsurgical repair versus nerve alignment for digital nerve injury.","authors":"Justin C R Wormald,Matthew D Gardiner,Christina Jerosch-Herold,Jonathan Cook,Rafael Pinedo Villanueva,Ciaron O'Hanlon,Naomi Vides,Gianluca Fabiano,Scott Parsons,Loretta Davies,Heidi Fletcher,Molly Glaze,Cushla Cooper,Dominic Power,Abhilash Jain,David Beard, ","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf174","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDDigital nerves provide sensibility to the fingers. They are commonly injured through accidental sharp laceration. The aim of the NEON (Nerve rEpair Or Not) study was to investigate whether microsurgical suture repair of lacerated digital nerves is superior to nerve alignment alone without suture repair.METHODSA two-arm, parallel group, double-blind, multicentre RCT was undertaken over 2 years. Participants with suspected unilateral digital nerve injury underwent surgical exploration and were randomized to microsurgical suture repair or nerve alignment alone. The primary outcome was the Impact of Hand Nerve Disorders (I-HaND v2) patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at 12 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes assessed were: objective neurosensory and functional recovery; health-related quality of life to examine cost-effectiveness; complications of surgery and clinically problematic neuroma rates (Elliot score). Both participants and assessors were blind to allocation.RESULTSA total of 122 adults were randomized to microsurgical suture repair (n = 61) or nerve alignment alone (n = 61). Primary outcome data using the I-HaND (v2) were available for 106 participants (87%) at 12 months. There were no statistically significant differences in I-HaND scores at all time points, including the 12-month primary end point (15.9 versus 20.2, P = 0.09; 95% c.i. [-0.9, 10.8]). There were also no differences in all secondary outcome measures, including Patient Evaluation Measure and EQ-5D-5L scores at 12 months. Complications were similar at 6 weeks and 12 months. The trial was closed early by the funder owing to slow recruitment and did not reach the intended sample size.CONCLUSIONBased on the available data from the NEON trial, there is no evidence to support the beneficial effect of suture repair over nerve alignment alone for isolated digital nerve injury. This multicentre RCT can be used to inform future trials, inform patients and guide clinical practice.FUNDINGNIHR Health Technology Assessment (NIHR127807-18/37).TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERISRCTN16211574.","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144962635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Target trial emulation: harnessing real-world data to evaluate surgery and perioperative care interventions.","authors":"Kitty H F Wong,Robert J Hinchliffe","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf182","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144959987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mwayi Kachapila,Stephen Tabiri,Mark Monahan,Francis A Abantanga,Anita Eseenam Agbeko,Fareeda Agyei,Aneel Bhangu,Dion G Morton,Tracy E Roberts,Virginia Ledda,Mike Ohene-Yeboah,Raymond Oppong
{"title":"Task sharing in elective inguinal hernia surgery in Ghana: a workforce model comparing surgeons and physicians.","authors":"Mwayi Kachapila,Stephen Tabiri,Mark Monahan,Francis A Abantanga,Anita Eseenam Agbeko,Fareeda Agyei,Aneel Bhangu,Dion G Morton,Tracy E Roberts,Virginia Ledda,Mike Ohene-Yeboah,Raymond Oppong","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf173","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144962707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mikael Lindmark,Jael Tall,Bahman Darkahi,Johanna Österberg,Karin Strigård,Anders Thorell,Ulf Gunnarsson
BACKGROUNDLaparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair using a bridging technique has shown high rates of hernia site complications. Primary fascial closure before mesh placement has been utilized to address this. This randomized, parallel, double-blind, multicentre controlled trial investigated whether primary fascial closure reduces hernia site complications.METHODSAdults undergoing laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair for a midline hernia were randomized to primary fascial closure or bridging. Clinical assessment and the Ventral Hernia Pain Questionnaire were completed preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months post-surgery. CT scans were performed pre- and 12 months post-surgery. It was hypothesized that non-resorbable suture closure would reduce complication rates from 30% to 13% at 12 months, requiring 180 patients for 80% power and 95% significance.RESULTSOne hundred and ninety-two patients were randomized (97 closure, 95 bridging), with 173 (90%) completing 1-year follow-up. At 12 months, overall hernia site complication rates showed no significant difference clinically (18% versus 20%, P = 0.85) or on CT (25% versus 28%, P = 0.50). However, recurrence and mesh bulging were significantly lower with fascial closure (4% versus 20%, P = 0.006). This group also reported significantly less pain at 12 months.CONCLUSIONAlthough there was no difference in the primary endpoint, fascial closure resulted in significantly lower rates of recurrence and mesh bulging, along with reduced postoperative pain. These findings suggest that primary fascial closure should be recommended alongside intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair in midline hernias.TRIAL REGISTRATIONThe trial was registered at the ISRCTN at the start of the trial (ISRCTN51495042).
{"title":"Recurrence rate and mesh bulging are reduced with primary fascial closure in ventral hernia repair: the PROSECO randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Mikael Lindmark,Jael Tall,Bahman Darkahi,Johanna Österberg,Karin Strigård,Anders Thorell,Ulf Gunnarsson","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf169","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf169","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDLaparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair using a bridging technique has shown high rates of hernia site complications. Primary fascial closure before mesh placement has been utilized to address this. This randomized, parallel, double-blind, multicentre controlled trial investigated whether primary fascial closure reduces hernia site complications.METHODSAdults undergoing laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair for a midline hernia were randomized to primary fascial closure or bridging. Clinical assessment and the Ventral Hernia Pain Questionnaire were completed preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months post-surgery. CT scans were performed pre- and 12 months post-surgery. It was hypothesized that non-resorbable suture closure would reduce complication rates from 30% to 13% at 12 months, requiring 180 patients for 80% power and 95% significance.RESULTSOne hundred and ninety-two patients were randomized (97 closure, 95 bridging), with 173 (90%) completing 1-year follow-up. At 12 months, overall hernia site complication rates showed no significant difference clinically (18% versus 20%, P = 0.85) or on CT (25% versus 28%, P = 0.50). However, recurrence and mesh bulging were significantly lower with fascial closure (4% versus 20%, P = 0.006). This group also reported significantly less pain at 12 months.CONCLUSIONAlthough there was no difference in the primary endpoint, fascial closure resulted in significantly lower rates of recurrence and mesh bulging, along with reduced postoperative pain. These findings suggest that primary fascial closure should be recommended alongside intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair in midline hernias.TRIAL REGISTRATIONThe trial was registered at the ISRCTN at the start of the trial (ISRCTN51495042).","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144960068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sander J M van Hootegem,Niels A D Guchelaar,Karen van der Sluis,Lianne Triemstra,Stefan P Mönig,Karol Rawicz-Pruszyński,Riccardo Rosati,Paolo Morgagni,Maria Erodotou,Leonardo Solaini,Giovanni De Manzoni,Wojciech Polkowski,Francesco Puccetti,Simone Giacopuzzi,Suzanne S Gisbertz,Jimmy B Y So,Jelle P Ruurda,Pieter S L van der Sluis,Sjoerd M Lagarde,Johanna W van Sandick,Bas P L Wijnhoven,
{"title":"Staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer: European consensus.","authors":"Sander J M van Hootegem,Niels A D Guchelaar,Karen van der Sluis,Lianne Triemstra,Stefan P Mönig,Karol Rawicz-Pruszyński,Riccardo Rosati,Paolo Morgagni,Maria Erodotou,Leonardo Solaini,Giovanni De Manzoni,Wojciech Polkowski,Francesco Puccetti,Simone Giacopuzzi,Suzanne S Gisbertz,Jimmy B Y So,Jelle P Ruurda,Pieter S L van der Sluis,Sjoerd M Lagarde,Johanna W van Sandick,Bas P L Wijnhoven, ","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf144","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144995875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Challenges of decision-making after treatment with immunotherapy in metastatic deficient DNA mismatch repair/microsatellite unstable colorectal cancer.","authors":"Julien Taieb,Mehdi Karoui","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf178","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"163 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145008788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) is a reporting guideline developed to provide reporting recommendations for studies evaluating the performance of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots when summarizing clinical evidence and providing health advice, referred to as chatbot health advice studies. CHART was developed in several phases after performing a comprehensive systematic review to identify variation in the conduct, reporting, and method in chatbot health advice studies. Findings from the review were used to develop a draft checklist that was revised through an international, multidisciplinary, modified, asynchronous Delphi consensus process of 531 stakeholders, three synchronous panel consensus meetings of 48 stakeholders, and subsequent pilot testing of the checklist. CHART includes 12 items and 39 subitems to promote transparent and comprehensive reporting of chatbot health advice studies. These include title (subitem 1a), abstract/summary (subitem 1b), background (subitems 2a,b), model identifiers (subitems 3a,b), model details (subitems 4a-c), prompt engineering (subitems 5a,b), query strategy (subitems 6a-d), performance evaluation (subitems 7a,b), sample size (subitem 8), data analysis subitem 9a), results (subitems 10a-c), discussion (subitems 11a-c), disclosures (subitem 12a), funding (subitem 12b), ethics (subitem 12c), protocol (subitem 12d), and data availability (subitem 12e). The CHART checklist and corresponding diagram of the method were designed to support key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, editors, peer reviewers, and readers in reporting, understanding, and interpreting the findings of chatbot health advice studies.
{"title":"Reporting guideline for chatbot health advice studies: the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) statement.","authors":" ","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf142","url":null,"abstract":"The Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) is a reporting guideline developed to provide reporting recommendations for studies evaluating the performance of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots when summarizing clinical evidence and providing health advice, referred to as chatbot health advice studies. CHART was developed in several phases after performing a comprehensive systematic review to identify variation in the conduct, reporting, and method in chatbot health advice studies. Findings from the review were used to develop a draft checklist that was revised through an international, multidisciplinary, modified, asynchronous Delphi consensus process of 531 stakeholders, three synchronous panel consensus meetings of 48 stakeholders, and subsequent pilot testing of the checklist. CHART includes 12 items and 39 subitems to promote transparent and comprehensive reporting of chatbot health advice studies. These include title (subitem 1a), abstract/summary (subitem 1b), background (subitems 2a,b), model identifiers (subitems 3a,b), model details (subitems 4a-c), prompt engineering (subitems 5a,b), query strategy (subitems 6a-d), performance evaluation (subitems 7a,b), sample size (subitem 8), data analysis subitem 9a), results (subitems 10a-c), discussion (subitems 11a-c), disclosures (subitem 12a), funding (subitem 12b), ethics (subitem 12c), protocol (subitem 12d), and data availability (subitem 12e). The CHART checklist and corresponding diagram of the method were designed to support key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, editors, peer reviewers, and readers in reporting, understanding, and interpreting the findings of chatbot health advice studies.","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144756184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Protocol for the GOLF trial: randomized clinical trial on the LINX management system versus fundoplication for the surgical treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.","authors":"Sheraz R Markar,Begum Zeybek Saglam,Nainika Menon,Ahmed Ahmed,Nick Maynard,James Gossage,Filipa Landeiro,Jane Blazeby,Nicola Mills,Tim Underwood,Mimi McCord,T Martyn Hill,Amy Taylor,Natalie Blencowe,Jesper Lagergren","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf141","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144612878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hila Zelicha,Douglas S Bell,Yijun Chen,Edward H Livingston
{"title":"Potential for error when relying on administrative data.","authors":"Hila Zelicha,Douglas S Bell,Yijun Chen,Edward H Livingston","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf139","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144645910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：