ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2019
The evolution of fast track protocols after oesophagectomy.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nasogastric tube after oesophagectomy and risk of anastomotic leak: a Nordic, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Impact of Enhanced Recovery Protocols on Short-Term Outcomes in Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study from Cancer Research Institute, Uttarakhand, India.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of pleural drain amylase and serum C-reactive protein for early detection of intrathoracic esophago-gastric anastomotic leaks.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Observational
- Feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal resections: a UK-wide survey.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2020Article
- Current status of esophageal cancer treatment.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2020Article
- Ubiquitination of NOTCH2 by DTX3 suppresses the proliferation and migration of human esophageal carcinoma.Cancer science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fast track is a standardised goal directed patient's care pathway that aims to facilitate recovery following surgery. Currently, there are large variations in the fast track protocols used in oesophagectomy due to the complexity of the procedure. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the evolution of fast track protocols following oesophagectomy since its implementation and the resulting effect on postoperative outcomes. Relevant electronic databases were searched for studies assessing the clinical outcome from fast track in oesophagectomy and also those assessing the effects of the individual key components in fast track protocols. The search yielded twenty-three publications regarding fast track implementation in oesophagectomy. A pattern of consistent evolution in fast-track protocols was clearly demonstrated and these have shown variations in the core-identified components across the studies. However, evolution in fast track protocols over time showed, an overall improvement in length of stay, anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications and mortality over time. Thirty publications were included that evaluated specific components of fast track protocols, with an increasing trend towards addressing the nutritional aspect in oesophagectomy care in more recent years. The variations in the key components of fast track protocol of care identify the need for continued assessment and identification for areas of improvement. In the future incremental gains through focused improvements in key components will lend itself to even better postoperative outcomes and patient experience during oesophageal cancer treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.