Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30841029›Full record

ReviewKorean journal of anesthesiology2019

Enhanced recovery after surgery in liver resection: current concepts and controversies.

Vandana Agarwal, Jigeeshu V Divatia

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vandana AgarwalDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Jigeeshu V DivatiaDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Homi Bhabha National Institute · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) attenuates the stress response to surgery in the perioperative period and hastens recovery. Liver resection is a complex surgical procedure where the enhanced recovery program has been shown to be safe and effective in terms of postoperative outcomes. ERAS programs have been shown to be associated with lower morbidity, shortened postoperative stay, and reduced cost with no difference in mortality and readmission rates. However, there are challenges that are unique to hepatic resection such as safety after epidural catheterization and postoperative coagulopathy, intraoperative fluids and postoperative organ dysfunction, need for low central venous pressure to reduce blood loss, and non-lactate containing intravenous fluids. This narrative review briefly discusses these concerns and controversies and suggests revisiting some of the strong recommendations made by the ERAS society in light of the recent evidence.

Indexed as

Early AmbulationEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryHepatectomyHumansLiverPerioperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsPractice Guidelines as TopicRecovery of FunctionSocieties, MedicalBalanced crystalloidCentral venous pressureCoagulopathyEnhanced recovery after surgeryEpidural analgesiaLiver resectionPerioperative

Identifiers

PMID30841029
PMCPMC6458514
OpenAlexW2922060572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.