SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2013
Fast-track rehabilitation vs conventional care in laparoscopic colorectal resection for colorectal malignancy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04201730 (A Single Center, Open, Randomized Clinical Trial：Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery （ERAS）in Gastrointestinal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
A Single Center, Open, Randomized Clinical Trial：Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery （ERAS）in Gastrointestinal Cancer
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Pooled it
- Is the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Effective and Safe in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019Pooled it
- Influence of enhanced recovery after surgery programs on laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2017Pooled it
- Fast-track surgery versus traditional perioperative care in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2014Pooled it
- Impact of home-based preoperative physical activity on postoperative complications in patients undergoing oncologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Determining the Safety and Efficacy of Enhanced Recovery Protocols in Major Oncologic Surgery: An Institutional NSQIP Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- Sufentanil Sublingual Tablet System (SSTS) for the management of postoperative pain after major abdominal and gynecological surgery within an ERAS protocol: an observational study.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Newly implemented enhanced recovery pathway positively impacts hospital length of stay.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Role of Epidural Analgesia within an ERAS Program after Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Studies.Surgery research and practice · 2016Review
- Future Perspectives of ERAS: A Narrative Review on the New Applications of an Established Approach.Surgery research and practice · 2016Review
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Colorectal Resection Within Fast Track Programs: An Update Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2015Review
- Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Is It Time to Change Our Strategy Regarding Laparoscopic Colectomy?In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the fast-track rehabilitation protocol and laparoscopic surgery (LFT) vs conventional care strategies and laparoscopic surgery (LCC).
methodsStudies and relevant literature comparing the effects of LFT and LCC for colorectal malignancy were identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE. The complications and re-admission after approximately 1 mo were assessed.
resultsSix recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis, which related to 655 enrolled patients. These studies demonstrated that compared with LCC, LFT has fewer complications and a similar incidence of re-admission after approximately 1 mo. LFT had a pooled RR of 0.60 (95%CI: 0.46-0.79, P < 0.001) compared with a pooled RR of 0.69 (95%CI: 0.34-1.40, P > 0.5) for LCC.
conclusionLFT for colorectal malignancy is safe and efficacious. Larger prospective RCTs should be conducted to further compare the efficacy and safety of this approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.