Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26364714›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of surgery2015

Incomplete reporting of enhanced recovery elements and its impact on achieving quality improvement.

Ryan W Day, Sharon Fielder, John Calhoun, Henrik Kehlet, Vijaya Gottumukkala, Thomas A Aloia

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. ERAS in minimally invasive hepatectomy.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2020
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Hepatobiliary.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Enhanced recovery protocols after oesophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. The Development, Application and Analysis of an Enhanced Recovery Programme for Major Oesophagogastric Resection.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Ryan W DayDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Herman Pressler, Unit 1484, Houston, Texas 77030.
Sharon FielderDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Herman Pressler, Unit 1484, Houston, Texas 77030.
John CalhounInstitute for Cancer Care Innovation at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Herman Pressler, Unit 1484, Houston, Texas 77030.
Henrik KehletSection of Surgical Pathophysiology, Rigshospitalet Copenhagen University, Denmark.
Vijaya Gottumukkala *Department of Anaesthesia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Herman Pressler, Unit 1484, Houston, Texas 77030.
Thomas A Aloia *Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Herman Pressler, Unit 1484, Houston, Texas 77030.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS CA016672NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced recovery (ER) protocols are used widely in surgical practice. As protocols are multidisciplinary with multiple components, it is difficult to compare and contrast reports. The present study examined compliance and transferability to clinical practice among ER publications related to colorectal surgery.

methodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched for current colorectal ER manuscripts. Each publication was assessed for the number of ER elements, whether the element was explained sufficiently so that it could be transferred to clinical practice, and compliance with the ER element.

resultsSome 50 publications met the reporting criteria for inclusion. A total of 22 ER elements were described. The median number of elements included in each publication was 9, and the median number of included patients was 130. The elements most commonly included in ER pathways were early postoperative diet advancement (49, 98 per cent) and early mobilization (47, 94 per cent). Early diet advancement was sufficiently explained in 43 (86 per cent) of the 50 publications, but only 22 (45 per cent) of 49 listing the variable reported compliance. The explanation for early mobilization was satisfactory in 41 (82 per cent) of the 50 publications, although only 14 (30 per cent) of 47 listing the variable reported compliance. Other ER elements had similar rates of explanation and compliance. The most frequently analysed outcome measures were morbidity (49, 98 per cent), length of stay (47, 94 per cent) and mortality (45, 90 per cent).

conclusionThe current standard of reporting is frequently incomplete. To transfer knowledge and facilitate implementation of pathways that demonstrate improvements in perioperative care and recovery, a consistent structured reporting platform is needed.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceQuality ImprovementRecovery of FunctionColorectal SurgeryHumansPerioperative Care

Identifiers

PMID26364714
PMCPMC4838394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.