Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27978842›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

Fast-track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial.

Ling Cui, Yu Shi, G N Zhang

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02687412 (Fast-track Surgery After Gynaecological Oncological Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 76% 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 map

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
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ling CuiDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Yu ShiDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
G N ZhangDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. zhanggn@hotmail.com.
Sichuan Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFast-track surgery (FTS), also known as enhanced recovery after surgery, is a multidisciplinary approach to accelerate recovery, reduce complications, minimise hospital stay without increasing readmission rates, and reduce health care costs, all without compromising patient safety. The advantages of FTS in abdominal surgery most likely extend to gynaecological surgery, but this is an assumption, as FTS in elective gynaecological surgery has not been well studied. No consensus guidelines have been developed for gynaecological oncological surgery although surgeons have attempted to introduce slightly modified FTS programmes for patients undergoing such surgery. To our knowledge, there are no published randomised controlled trials; however, some studies have shown that FTS in gynaecological oncological surgery leads to early hospital discharge with high levels of patient satisfaction. The aim of this study is whether FTS reduces the length of stay in hospital compared to traditional management. The secondary aim is whether FTS is associated with any increase in post-surgical complications compared to traditional management (for both open and laparoscopic surgery). METHODS/

designThis trial will prospectively compare FTS and traditional management protocols. The primary endpoint is the length of post-operative hospitalisation (days, mean ± standard deviation), defined as the number of days between the date of discharge and the date of surgery. The secondary endpoints are complications in both groups (FTS versus traditional protocol) occurring during the first 3 months post-operatively including infection (wound infection, lung infection, intraperitoneal infection), post-operative nausea and vomiting, ileus, post-operative haemorrhage, post-operative thrombosis, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Enquiry II score. DISCUSSION: The advantages of FTS most likely extend to gynaecology, although, to our knowledge, there are no randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study is to compare the post-operative length of hospitalisation after major gynaecological or gynaecological oncological surgery and to analyse patients' post-operative complications. This trial may reveal whether FTS leads to early hospital discharge with few complications after gynaecological surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02687412 . Approval Number: SCCHEC20160001. Date of registration: registered on 23 February 2016.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAdolescentAdultAgedChinaClinical ProtocolsFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRecovery of FunctionResearch DesignFast-track surgeryGynaecological surgeryOncological surgeryPost-operative length of hospitalisationRandomised controlled study

Identifiers

PMID27978842
PMCPMC5159978
OpenAlexW2563767118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.