Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29574998›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018

Safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs in patients undergoing hepatectomy: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

Shuo Qi, Guodong Chen, Peng Cao, Jiangping Hu, Gengsheng He, Jiaxing Luo, Jun He, Xiuda Peng

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Reduces Hospital Costs and Improve Clinical Outcomes in Liver Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Shuo QiDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang Hunan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0600-585X
Guodong ChenDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang Hunan, China.
Peng CaoDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang Hunan, China.
Jiangping HuDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang Hunan, China.
Gengsheng HeDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang Hunan, China.
Jiaxing LuoDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang Hunan, China.
Jun HeDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang Hunan, China.
Xiuda PengDepartment of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang Hunan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs, following a variety of perioperative treatments with evidence-based medical evidence, has indicated its validity to accelerate rehabilitation in a wide variety of surgical procedures. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was implemented to verify the safety and efficacy of the perioperative effects in patients undergoing hepatectomy with ERAS or with conventional surgery (CS).

methodsFrom August 2016 to November 2017, according to the inclusion criteria, 160 patients with liver diseases were suitable for participating in this experiment. Patients before liver resection were randomized into ERAS group (n = 80) and CS group (n = 80), and then the outcome measures were compared between the two groups.

resultsEnhanced recovery after surgery group had significantly less complications than CS group (P = .009). Compared with CS group, patients in ERAS group had low peak of WBCs in postoperative day (POD1), ALT in POD1 and POD3 (P < .05), high value of ALB in POD3 and POD5 (P < .05), less pain and higher patient satisfaction (P < .001), earlier exhaust, oral feeding, ambulation and extubation time (P < .05),and also had less hospital stay and cost (P < .001). There were no significant differences in readmission rate (<30 days) between two groups (P = .772).

conclusionsEnhanced recovery after surgery programs applied to patients undergoing hepatectomy can safely and effectively relieve stress response, reduce the incidence of complications, improve patient satisfaction, accelerate patient recovery, reduce financial burden, and bring economic benefits.

Indexed as

enhanced recovery after surgeryhepatectomyperioperative treatmentsrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID29574998
PMCPMC6816868

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.