Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31900149›Full record

SynthesisBMC surgery2020

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery for upper gastrointestinal surgery: Meta-analysis.

Zhen-Dong Huang, Hui-Yun Gu, Jie Zhu, Jie Luo, Xian-Feng Shen, Qi-Feng Deng, Chao Zhang, Yan-Bing Li

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. [Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhen-Dong HuangCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, No.32, South Renmin Road, Shiyan, 442000, China.
Hui-Yun GuDepartment of Orthopedic, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430000, China.
Jie ZhuTrade Union, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, 442000, China.
Jie LuoCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, No.32, South Renmin Road, Shiyan, 442000, China.
Xian-Feng ShenDepartment of General Surgery, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, No.32, South Renmin Road, Shiyan, 442000, China.
Qi-Feng DengCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, No.32, South Renmin Road, Shiyan, 442000, China.
Chao ZhangCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, No.32, South Renmin Road, Shiyan, 442000, China. zhangchao0803@126.com.
Yan-Bing LiDepartment of General Surgery, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, No.32, South Renmin Road, Shiyan, 442000, China. liyanbing126@163.com.
Hubei University of Medicine · CNWuhan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has made great progress in the field of surgery, the guidelines point to the lack of high-quality evidence in upper gastrointestinal surgery.

methodsRandomized controlled trials in four electronic databases that involved ERAS protocols for upper gastrointestinal surgery were searched through December 12, 2018. The primary endpoints were lung infection, urinary tract infection, surgical site infection, postoperative anastomotic leakage and ileus. The secondary endpoints were postoperative length of stay, the time from end of surgery to first flatus and defecation, and readmission rates. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of surgery.

resultsA total of 17 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that there was a decrease in rates of lung infection (RR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33 to 0.75), postoperative length of stay (MD = -2.53, 95%CI: - 3.42 to - 1.65), time until first postoperative flatus (MD = -0.64, 95%CI: - 0.84 to - 0.45) and time until first postoperative defecation (MD = -1.10, 95%CI: - 1.74 to - 0.47) in patients who received ERAS, compared to conventional care. However, other outcomes were not significant difference. There was no significant difference between ERAS and conventional care in rates of urinary tract infection (P = 0.10), surgical site infection (P = 0.42), postoperative anastomotic leakage (P = 0.45), readmissions (P = 0.31) and ileus (P = 0.25).

conclusionsERAS protocols can reduce the risk of postoperative lung infection and accelerating patient recovery time. Nevertheless, we should also consider further research ERAS should be performed undergoing gastrectomy and esophagectomy.

Indexed as

Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryDigestive System Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayPostoperative PeriodEnhanced recovery after surgeryGastric cancerMultimodal perioperative carePostoperative morbidityUpper gastrointestinal surgery

Identifiers

PMID31900149
PMCPMC6942370
OpenAlexW3004837844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.