Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26676149›Full record

ReviewObstetrical & gynecological survey2015

Enhanced Recovery Pathways in Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology.

Emma L Barber, Linda Van Le

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Obstetrical & gynecological survey, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Early physical therapy intervention in gynaecological surgery: "Case series".International journal of surgery case reports · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

2 authors.

Emma L BarberClinical Fellow and Physician, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Linda Van LeProfessor and Physician, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Lineberger Clinical Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Funding

Training in Epidemiology and Clinical Trials (TECT)T32HD040672 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BOGGESS, KIM A · 2001 to 2015
$4.2M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD040672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceEnhanced recovery programs (ERPs) are considered standard of care across a variety of surgical disciplines, but ERPs have not been widely adopted in gynecology.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to describe ERP principles and the role of ERPs in gynecology and gynecologic oncology. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Database, and PubMed.

resultsMeta-analyses of a substantial number of randomized controlled trials have shown that implementation of ERP protocols is associated with decreased length of hospital stay, a decrease in rates of postoperative complication, decreased morbidity, and cost savings while preserving patient satisfaction and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: High-quality evidence exists for improved outcomes among patients in ERPs. Enhanced recovery programs save resources and costs across the health care system. As quality metrics and bundled payments increase in health care, ERPs will have increasing prominence.

Indexed as

CathetersDietDrainageEarly AmbulationFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansPain ManagementPreoperative CareWater-Electrolyte Balance

Identifiers

PMID26676149
PMCPMC4683417

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.