Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32085813›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2020

Proposed pathway for patients undergoing enhanced recovery after spinal surgery: protocol for a systematic review.

Ana Licina, Andrew Silvers, Harry Laughlin, Jeremy Russell, Crispin Wan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. [Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Ana LicinaAustin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084, Australia. analicina@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8897-0156
Andrew SilversMonash Health, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, Australia.
Harry LaughlinAustin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084, Australia.
Jeremy RussellAustin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084, Australia.
Crispin WanSt Vincent's Health, 41 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe best evidence-enhanced recovery care pathway is yet to be defined for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Minimally invasive surgery, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization, and early postoperative nutrition have been considered as critical components of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery (ERSS). The objective of this study will be to synthesize the evidence underpinning individual components of a proposed multidisciplinary enhanced recovery pathway for patients undergoing spinal surgery.

methodsThis is the study protocol for a systematic review of complex interventions. Our team identified 22 individual care components of a proposed pathway based on clinical practice guidelines and published reviews. We will include systematic reviews and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies in adults or pediatric patients evaluating any one of the pre-determined care components. Our primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, morbidity outcomes (e.g., pulmonary, cardiac, renal, surgical complications), patient-reported outcomes and experiences (e.g., pain, quality of care experience), and health services outcomes (e.g., length of stay and costs). We will search the following databases (1990 onwards) MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The risk of bias for individual studies will be appraised using appropriate tools. A narrative synthesis will be provided with the information presented in the text and tables to summarize and explain the characteristics and findings of the included studies. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we do not anticipate to conduct meta-analyses. Confidence in cumulative evidence for each component of care will be classified according to the GRADE system. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will identify, evaluate, and integrate the evidence underpinning individual components of a pathway for patients undergoing spinal surgery. The formation of an evidence-based pathway will allow for the standardization of clinical care delivery within the context of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019135289.

Indexed as

Critical PathwaysEarly AmbulationEvidence-Based MedicineMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresAnalgesiaHospital MortalityHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationPreoperative ExerciseSpineSystematic Reviews as TopicEnhanced recoveryMinimally invasive surgeryMultimodal analgesiaPerioperative nutritionPerioperative outcomesPerioperative pathwayPreadmission processesPrehabilitationSpinal surgery

Identifiers

PMID32085813
PMCPMC7035675

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.