SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017
Impact of enhanced recovery program on patients with esophageal cancer in comparison with traditional care.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of co-morbidities on health-related quality of life 10 years after surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer.BJS open · 2020Article
- Cardiorespiratory Comorbidity and Postoperative Complications following Esophagectomy: a European Multicenter Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEnhanced recovery program (ERP) was reported to be beneficial to patients undergoing esophageal surgery. However, evidence for ERP as a new standard perioperative pathway is insufficient. This meta-analysis aims to systematically investigate the differences between ERP and traditional care in terms of postoperative outcomes.
methodsStudies comparing ERP with traditional care were searched in Pubmed and Ovid databases and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was postoperative length of hospital stay (LOHS), and the secondary outcomes of interest were postoperative morbidity, mortality, and 30-day readmission rates. Statistical analysis was performed using weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR). Review Manager 5.3 was used to generate the eligible data.
resultsThirteen studies with 2358 patients (1182 patients in the ERP group and 1176 patients in the control group) were included in this meta-analysis. The total LOHS (WMD -5.37; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -7.74 to -2.99; p < 0.00001) was significantly shorter in the ERP group than the control group. No statistically significant difference was found in morbidity (OR 0.78; 95 % confidence interval 0.58 to 1.05; p = 0.10), mortality (OR 0.76; 95 % CI 0.40 to 1.46; p = 0.41), and 30-day readmission rates (OR 1.01; 95 % CI 0.70 to 1.46; p = 0.97).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggested that the implementation of ERP led to a reduction in LOHS, while morbidity, mortality, and 30-day readmission rates did not increase compared with traditional care in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27726032What OpenQuestion holds
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.