The effect of minimum volume standards in hospitals (MIVOS) - protocol of a systematic review.
Centralization
Minimum volume regulation
Minimum volume standard
Volume-outcome relationship
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 01 2023
20 01 2023
Historique:
received:
18
08
2022
accepted:
14
12
2022
entrez:
20
1
2023
pubmed:
21
1
2023
medline:
25
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The volume-outcome relationship, i.e., higher hospital volume results in better health outcomes, has been established for different surgical procedures as well as for certain nonsurgical medical interventions. Accordingly, many countries such as Germany, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Switzerland have established minimum volume standards. To date, there is a lack of systematically summarized evidence regarding the effects of such regulations. To be included in the review, studies must measure any effects connected to minimum volume standards. Outcomes of interest include the following: (1) patient-related outcomes, (2) process-related outcomes, and (3) health system-related outcomes. We will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials ([C]RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs). We will apply no restrictions regarding language, publication date, and publication status. We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Embase), CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library), CINHAL (via EBSCO), EconLit (via EBSCO), PDQ evidence for informed health policymaking, health systems evidence, OpenGrey, and also trial registries for relevant studies. We will further search manually for additional studies by cross-checking the reference lists of all included primary studies as well as cross-checking the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the risk of bias, we will use the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 risk-of-bias tools for the corresponding study designs. For data synthesis and statistical analyses, we will follow the guidance published by the EPOC Cochrane group (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), EPOC Resources for review authors, 2019). This systematic review focuses on minimum volume standards and the outcomes used to measure their effects. It is designed to provide thorough and encompassing evidence-based information on this topic. Thus, it will inform decision-makers and policymakers with respect to the effects of minimum volume standards and inform further studies in regard to research gaps. PROSPERO CRD42022318883.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The volume-outcome relationship, i.e., higher hospital volume results in better health outcomes, has been established for different surgical procedures as well as for certain nonsurgical medical interventions. Accordingly, many countries such as Germany, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Switzerland have established minimum volume standards. To date, there is a lack of systematically summarized evidence regarding the effects of such regulations.
METHODS
To be included in the review, studies must measure any effects connected to minimum volume standards. Outcomes of interest include the following: (1) patient-related outcomes, (2) process-related outcomes, and (3) health system-related outcomes. We will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials ([C]RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs). We will apply no restrictions regarding language, publication date, and publication status. We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Embase), CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library), CINHAL (via EBSCO), EconLit (via EBSCO), PDQ evidence for informed health policymaking, health systems evidence, OpenGrey, and also trial registries for relevant studies. We will further search manually for additional studies by cross-checking the reference lists of all included primary studies as well as cross-checking the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the risk of bias, we will use the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 risk-of-bias tools for the corresponding study designs. For data synthesis and statistical analyses, we will follow the guidance published by the EPOC Cochrane group (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), EPOC Resources for review authors, 2019).
DISCUSSION
This systematic review focuses on minimum volume standards and the outcomes used to measure their effects. It is designed to provide thorough and encompassing evidence-based information on this topic. Thus, it will inform decision-makers and policymakers with respect to the effects of minimum volume standards and inform further studies in regard to research gaps.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022318883.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36670435
doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02160-7
pii: 10.1186/s13643-022-02160-7
pmc: PMC9862850
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6
pubmed: 21208779
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2007 Jun;211(3):110-7
pubmed: 17541877
Intensive Care Med. 2012 May;38(5):741-51
pubmed: 22476446
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40-6
pubmed: 27005575
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;(3):CD004348
pubmed: 16856042
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Sep 18;20(1):886
pubmed: 32948161
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:61-7
pubmed: 26327490
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Public Health. 2014 Oct;128(10):872-85
pubmed: 25369352
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Feb 1;46(1):348-355
pubmed: 27283160
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008 Dec;105(51-52):890-6
pubmed: 19561803
Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 29;5(1):204
pubmed: 27899141
Health Serv Res. 1987 Jun;22(2):157-82
pubmed: 3112042
J Am Coll Surg. 2013 May;216(5):1015-1025.e18
pubmed: 23528183
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Dec 22;8:812
pubmed: 26695620
Public Health. 2017 May;146:92-107
pubmed: 28404479
Gesundheitswesen. 2010 May;72(5):271-8
pubmed: 19621282
Chirurg. 2014 Feb;85(2):121-4
pubmed: 24232742
Chest. 2015 Jul;148(1):79-92
pubmed: 25927593
Health Policy. 2018 Nov;122(11):1165-1176
pubmed: 30193981
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 May;109:30-41
pubmed: 30590190