Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31712331›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2019

Neurosurgical enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme for elective craniotomies: are patients satisfied with their experiences? A quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Bolin Liu, Shujuan Liu, Yuan Wang, Binfang Zhao, Tianzhi Zhao, Lanfu Zhao, Wenhai Lv, Yufu Zhang, Tao Zheng, Yafei Xue and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. ERAS Protocol Elements and Neurosurgery-Specific Considerations: A Narrative Review.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bolin Liu *Department of Neurosurgery, Xi'an International Medical Center, Xi'an, China.
Shujuan Liu *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yuan Wang *Department of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Binfang ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Tianzhi ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Lanfu ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Wenhai LvDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yufu ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Tao ZhengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xi'an International Medical Center, Xi'an, China.
Yafei XueDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Lei ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xi'an International Medical Center, Xi'an, China.
Long ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yingxi WuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Guodong GaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Yan QuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangdu Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Shiming HeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Xi'an International Medical Center, Xi'an, China neurosurg@126.com,he-shiming@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7697-9337
Air Force Medical University · CNXi'an International Studies University · CNXijing Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate patient satisfaction and associated predictors at discharge, as well as patient experience at 30-day follow-up, in a neurosurgical enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme.

designA single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled study.

settingA tertiary hospital in China.

participantsA total of 140 neurosurgical patients aged 18-65 years old who had a single intracranial lesion and were admitted for elective craniotomy between October 2016 and July 2017 were included.

interventionsPatients were randomised into two groups: 70 patients received care according to a novel neurosurgical ERAS protocol (ERAS group) and 70 patients received conventional perioperative care (control group). OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction at discharge was evaluated using a multimodal questionnaire. A secondary analysis of patient experience regarding participation in the ERAS programme was conducted using a semistructured qualitative interview via telephone at 30-day follow-up.

resultsThe mean patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the ERAS group than in the control group at discharge (92.2±4.3 vs 86.8±7.4, p=0.0001). The most important predictors of patient satisfaction included age (OR=6.934), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (OR=0.184), absorbable skin suture (OR=0.007) and postoperative length of stay (LOS) (OR=0.765). Analysis on patient experience revealed five themes: information transfer, professional support, shared responsibility and active participation, readiness for discharge, and follow-up, all of which are closely related and represent positive and negative aspects.

conclusionsMeasures that include decreasing PONV VAS score, incorporating absorbable skin suture and shortening LOS seem to increase patient satisfaction in a neurosurgical ERAS programme. Analysis of data on patient experience highlights several aspects to achieve patient-centred and high-quality care. Further studies are warranted to standardise the assessment of patient satisfaction and experience in planning, employing and appraising the ERAS programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-INR-16009662.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChinaCraniotomyElective Surgical ProceduresEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFemaleHumansLength of StayLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPatient SatisfactionPostoperative Nausea and Vomitingneurological oncologyneurosurgeryqualitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID31712331
PMCPMC6858174
OpenAlexW2989280808

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.