ReviewBMJ open2014
An overview and methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of enhanced recovery programmes in colorectal surgery.
Review in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of enhanced recovery pathways on patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for women with gynaecological cancers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- [Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of laxatives after major abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.BJS open · 2020Pooled it
- A Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Study on the Therapeutic Effect of Gastrografin in Prolonged Postoperative Ileus After Elective Colorectal Surgery.World journal of surgery · 2016Trial
- Perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for non-malignant gynaecological conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Cost-benefit analysis and short-term outcomes after implementing an ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Observational
- Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Use of the Smart Lean Method to Conduct High-Quality Integrated Perioperative Management Prior to Hospitalization.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Smartband Use During Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Facilitates Inpatient Recuperation Following Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2020Article
- Perioperative Management Center (PERIO) for Neurosurgical Patients.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2016Article
- Patient experiences of perioperative nutrition within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme for colorectal surgery: a qualitative study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo identify and critically assess the extent to which systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery differ in their methodology and reported estimates of effect.
designReview of published systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database from 1990 to March 2013. Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. We assessed changes in pooled estimates of treatment effect over time and how these might have been influenced by decisions taken by researchers as well as by the availability of new trials. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) DARE critical appraisal process.
results10 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials have consistently shown a reduction in length of hospital stay with enhanced recovery compared with traditional care. The estimated effect tended to increase from 2006 to 2010 as more trials were published but has not altered significantly in the most recent review, despite the inclusion of several unique trials. The best estimate appears to be an average reduction of around 2.5 days in primary postoperative length of stay. Differences between reviews reflected differences in interpretation of inclusion criteria, searching and analytical methods or software.
conclusionsSystematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes show a high level of research waste, with multiple reviews covering identical or very similar groups of trials. Where multiple reviews exist on a topic, interpretation may require careful attention to apparently minor differences between reviews. Researchers can help readers by acknowledging existing reviews and through clear reporting of key decisions, especially on inclusion/exclusion and on statistical pooling.
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.