Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27631314›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2017

Factors predicting outcome from enhanced recovery programmes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

David E Messenger, Nathan J Curtis, Adam Jones, Emma L Jones, Neil J Smart, Nader K Francis

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. [Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

David E MessengerColorectal Surgical Unit, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK.
Nathan J CurtisDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, BA21 4AT, UK.
Adam JonesDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, BA21 4AT, UK.
Emma L JonesDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester, LE1 6TP, UK.
Neil J SmartDepartment of General Surgery, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Nader K FrancisDepartment of General Surgery, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Higher Kingston, Yeovil, BA21 4AT, UK. nader.francis@ydh.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo perform a systematic review of published literature for the factors reported to predict outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

backgroundERAS programmes and the use of laparoscopy have been widely adopted in colorectal surgery bringing short-term patient benefit. However, there is a minority of patients that do not benefit from these strategies and their identification is not well characterised. The factors that underpin outcomes from ERAS programmes for laparoscopic patients are not understood.

methodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2000 and 2015. The search strategy captured terms for ERAS, colorectal resection, prediction and outcome measures.

resultsThirty-four studies containing 10,861 laparoscopic resections were included. Thirty-one (91 %) studies were confined to elective cases. Predictive analysis of outcome was most frequently based on length of stay (LOS), morbidity and readmission which were the main outcome measures of 29 (85 %), 26 (76 %) and 18 (53 %) of the included studies, respectively. Forty-seven percentage of included studies investigated the impact of ERAS programme compliance on these outcomes. Reduced protocol compliance was the most frequently identified modifiable predictive factor for adverse LOS, morbidity and readmission.

conclusionProtocol compliance is the most frequently reported predictive factor for outcomes of ERAS programmes following laparoscopic colorectal resection. Reduced compliance increases LOS, morbidity and readmission to hospital. The impact of compliance with individual ERAS protocol elements is insufficiently studied, and the lack of a standardised framework for evaluating ERAS programmes makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions about which factors exert the greatest impact on outcome after laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRecovery of FunctionColonDigestive System Surgical ProceduresGuideline AdherenceHumansLength of StayOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ReadmissionRectumColorectalEnhanced recoveryERASOutcomePrediction

Identifiers

PMID27631314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.