Observational studyObesity surgery2021
Analysis of the 'Evaluation Indicators' of an Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery Pathway in the First Six Months After Implementation.
Observational study in Obesity surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality indicators for structure and process in peri-operative care: a systematic review.Anaesthesia · 2026Pooled it
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implementation of a clinical pathway in bariatric surgery (BS) might facilitate systemic care. Focusing on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs may also improve surgical outcomes depending on the degree of adherence achieved. We hypothesized that the implementation of an ERAS clinical pathway in BS (ERABS) improves clinical outcomes compared to traditional treatment in a tertiary care hospital. The main objective was to assess the degree of adherence to the ERABS program. Secondary objectives were to evaluate compliance with the quality indicators of the Spanish Society for Obesity Surgery (SECO) and overall patients' satisfaction. A retrospective observational study was designed. Data from patients who underwent BS into an ERABS context were reviewed and compared with traditionally treated patients. Process and outcomes indicators adapted from RICA (Recuperación Intensificada en Cirugía Abdominal) pathway, degree of compliance with SECO quality indicators and patients' satisfaction were analyzed. Forty-three patients were included per group. Indicators' compliance rate per patient was 83.23%. Differences were found in postoperative bleeding, immediate morbidity and overall morbidity, but not in severity of complications. No patient felt dissatisfied or unsatisfied. Average compliance with indicators of process and outcome was 90.45%. Overall morbidity in ERABS group did not differ from that recommended by SECO, but traditional group did show significant increase. Adherence was 83.63% and overall incidence of complications was 7%. Our study shows improved clinical outcomes in ERABS group with a high degree of adherence. Quality indicators were met, improving overall morbidity with no difference in the severity of complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33840012What 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.