Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25052168›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2014

Effectiveness and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes: a rapid evidence synthesis.

Fiona Paton, Duncan Chambers, Paul Wilson, Alison Eastwood, Dawn Craig, Dave Fox, David Jayne, Erika McGinnes

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 64 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04511091 completednot on this map

Studio Osservazionale Retrospettivo Uneventful Vatslobectomy: Caratteristiche Cliniche

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital of FerraraRan2014 to 2020Enrolled10,000ConditionsThoracic Surgery, Video-AssistedArmsVATS lobectomy
NCT07695922 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

A Single-Centre, Non-Randomised Interventional Study for the Implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (RICA) Guidelines in Patients With Tokyo Guidelines 2018 Grade II Acute Cholecystitis Undergoing Early Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital d'IgualadaRan2026 to 2029Enrolled146ConditionsCholecystitis, Acute, Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic, Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryArmsRICA Perioperative Care Pathway
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Fiona PatonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Duncan ChambersCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Paul WilsonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Alison EastwoodCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Dawn CraigCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Dave FoxCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
David JayneLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Erika McGinnesLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 11/1026/04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the evidence on the impact of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings in the UK.

designRapid evidence synthesis. Eight databases were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. Systematic reviews, RCTs not included in the systematic reviews, economic evaluations and UK NHS cost analysis, implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were eligible for inclusion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on health or cost-related outcomes, and assessed implementation case studies and patient experience in UK settings. Studies were quality assessed where appropriate using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects critical appraisal process.

results17 systematic reviews and 12 additional RCTs were included. Ten relevant economic evaluations were included. No cost analysis studies were identified. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. 14 innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in National Health Service settings described factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5-3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified. Findings relating to other outcomes were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting.

conclusionsThere is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes can reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings can realise savings will depend on length of stay achieved under their existing care pathway.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualElective Surgical ProceduresCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPerioperative CareProgram EvaluationRecovery of FunctionTime FactorsTreatment Outcomeenhanced recoveryfast tracklength of hospital stay

Identifiers

PMID25052168
PMCPMC4120402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.