Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25789452›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for gynaecological cancer patients.

DongHao Lu, Xuan Wang, Gang Shi

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. 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 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT02687412 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Fast-track Surgery After Gynaecological Oncological Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorLing CuiRan2016 to 2018Enrolled107ConditionsLength of Stay, Postoperative Complications, CRPArmspre-operative assessment, counseling and education, Preoperative nutritional drink up to 4 h prior to surgery, bowel preparation, preoperative treatment with carbohydrates, fast solid
NCT02864277 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Versus Conventional Perioperative Strategies in Patients Undergoing Gynecologic Oncologic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2016 to 2021Enrolled120ConditionsMalignant Female Reproductive System NeoplasmArmsNo Intervention Conventional Strategy, ERAS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

DongHao LuDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Nobel väg 12A, Stockholm, Sweden, SE-17177.
Xuan Wang
Gang Shi
Sichuan University · CNWest China Medical Center of Sichuan University · CNWest China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGynaecological malignancies contribute to 10% to 15% of cancers in women internationally. In recent years, a trend towards new perioperative care strategies has been documented as 'Fast Track (FT) surgery', or 'Enhanced Recovery Programmes' to replace some traditional approaches in surgical care. The FT multimodal programmes may enhance the postoperative recovery by means of reducing surgical stress. This systematic review aims to assess fully the beneficial and harmful effects of FT programmes in gynaecological cancer care.

objectivesTo evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of FT programmes in gynaecological cancer care. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following databases, The Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Trial Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 4, 2009, MEDLINE and EMBASE to November 2009. In addition, all reference lists of included trials were searched and experts in the gynaecological oncology community were contacted in an attempt to locate trials. This search was updated and re-run in May 2012 and November 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of FT programmes for surgery in gynaecological cancer to conventional recovery strategies were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Since no RCTs were identified, data collection and analysis could not be performed. MAIN

resultsNo studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe currently have no evidence from high-quality studies to support or refute the use of perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for gynaecological cancer patients. Further well-designed RCTs with standard FT programmes are needed. This review has been updated in 2012 and 2014. The results of the original review published in 2010 remain unchanged.

Indexed as

FemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansLength of StayPerioperative CareProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID25789452
PMCPMC6457837
OpenAlexW1692850995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.