Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30032452›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2018

ERAS protocol validation in a propensity-matched cohort of patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Riccardo Lemini, Aaron C Spaulding, James M Naessens, Zhuo Li, Amit Merchea, Julia E Crook, David W Larson, Dorin T Colibaseanu

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019
    Review
  11. Factors that Lengthen Patient Hospitalizations Following Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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

8 authors.

Riccardo LeminiSection of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Aaron C SpauldingRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
James M NaessensRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Zhuo LiDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Biostatistics Unit, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Amit MercheaSection of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Julia E CrookDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Biostatistics Unit, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
David W LarsonDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Dorin T ColibaseanuSection of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. colibaseanu.dorin@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) provides many benefits. However, important knowledge gaps with respect to specific components of enhanced recovery after surgery remain because of limited validation data. The aim of the study was to validate a mature ERAS protocol at a different hospital and in a similar population of patients.

methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery from 2009 through 2016. Patients enrolled in ERAS are compared with those undergoing the standard of care. Patient demographic characteristics, length of stay, pain scores, and perioperative morbidity are described.

resultsPatients (1396) were propensity matched into two equal groups (ERAS vs non-ERAS). No significant difference was observed for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, sex, operative approach, and surgery duration. Median length of stay in ERAS and non-ERAS groups was 3 and 5 days (P < .001). Mean pain scores were lower in the ERAS group, measured at discharge from the postanesthesia unit (P < .001), on postoperative day 1 (P = .002) and postoperative day 2 (P = .02) but were identical on discharge.

conclusionsThis ERAS protocol was validated in a similar patient population but at a different hospital. ERAS implementation was associated with an improved length of stay and pain scores similar to the original study. Different than most retrospective studies, propensity score matching ensured that groups were evenly matched. To our knowledge, this study is the only ERAS validation study in a propensity-matched cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryPropensity ScoreCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeColorectal surgeryPain managementPatient dischargePatient readmissionPropensity score

Identifiers

PMID30032452

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.