SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2026
Systematic review of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery indicators with quality assessment of modelled estimates.
Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Catastrophic health expenditure associated to bellwether surgery care in Northcentral Ethiopia.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- Gender equity in neurosurgery requires structural reform.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) defined six indicators with 2030 targets to track national surgical system performance. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate national reporting and attainment of benchmarks for each indicator and to assess the quality of modelling studies used to fill data gaps.
methodsSeven bibliographic databases (1 April 2015-24 July 2024) and government domains of 48 countries committed to National Surgical, Obstetric, and Anaesthesia Plans were searched. Records providing national estimates of any LCoGS indicator were eligible. The primary outcome was the proportion of World Bank-classified countries meeting indicator benchmarks and the secondary outcome was the quality of modelled national estimates. This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD420250650890).
resultsOf 4245 records retrieved, 44 studies were included (35 research articles and 9 policy documents). Among 217 World Bank-classified countries, access to timely essential surgery (indicator 1) was reported for 94 countries (39% meeting benchmark), specialist surgical workforce density (indicator 2) was reported for 167 countries (50.3% meeting benchmark), surgical volume (indicator 3) was reported for 124 countries (31.5% meeting benchmark), perioperative mortality (indicator 4) was reported for 74 countries (no benchmark was set at country level), and financial risk protection indicators (indicators 5 and 6) were reported for five countries, with none meeting either benchmark. Across indicators, high-income countries were more likely to meet benchmarks. Most modelled studies lacked transparency in data sources, statistical methods, or model validation.
conclusionReporting of LCoGS indicators remains sparse and uneven, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Without standardized, routine measurement and minimum quality standards for modelled estimates, progress towards 2030 cannot be credibly tracked. Integrating surgical metrics into national health information systems should be a policy priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.