Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29387957›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2018

Interdepartmental Spread of Innovations: A Multicentre Study of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programme.

Jeanny J A de Groot, José M C Maessen, Cornelis H C Dejong, Bjorn Winkens, Roy F P M Kruitwagen, Brigitte F M Slangen, Trudy van der Weijden, all the members of the study group

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Jeanny J A de GrootDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. jeanny.de.groot@mumc.nl.
José M C MaessenDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Cornelis H C DejongDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bjorn WinkensDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Roy F P M KruitwagenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Brigitte F M SlangenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Trudy van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
all the members of the study group

Funding

ZonMw 80-83700-98-133021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpread of evidence-based innovations beyond pioneering settings is essential to improve quality of care. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of a national project to implement 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' (ERAS) among colorectal teams on the spread of this innovation to gynaecological procedures.

methodsA retrospective observational multicentre study was performed of a consecutive sample of patients who underwent major elective gynaecological surgery in 2012-2013. Ten Dutch hospitals (294 patients) had participated in a colorectal breakthrough project implementing ERAS on a nationwide basis and were assigned to the intervention group. Thirteen hospitals (390 patients) that had not participated in this project acted as controls. Outcome measures were time to functional recovery and total length of postoperative hospital stay. Multilevel models adjusted for clustering and baseline demographics were used for analysis. The uptake of ten selected perioperative care elements was evaluated for each hospital.

resultsThe estimated mean difference (95% confidence interval) between the intervention and control hospitals was -0.3 (-0.9 to 0.3) days in the time to recovery and 0.2 (-0.8 to 1.3) days in the total length of hospital stay. The mean (± standard deviation) absolute rate of implemented perioperative care elements per hospital was 28.9 ± 14.9% in the control, versus 29.3 ± 11.1% in the intervention group (p = 0.934).

conclusionInitial implementation effects seem to be restricted to the participating teams and do not automatically spread to other surgical teams in the same hospital.

Indexed as

Elective Surgical ProceduresGynecologic Surgical ProceduresRecovery of FunctionAgedFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePerioperative CareQuality of Health CareRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29387957
PMCPMC6060819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.