Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34056059›Full record

ArticleSurgery research and practice2021

Proposal and Validation of a New Classification of Surgical Outcomes after Colorectal Resections within an Enhanced Recovery Programme.

Giovanni D Tebala, Waseem Hameed, Salomone Di Saverio, Gaetano Gallo, Giles Bond-Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Giovanni D TebalaSurgical Emergency Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7152-4096
Waseem HameedGeneral Surgery Department, Wexham Park Hospital, Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Slough, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9688-4581
Salomone Di SaverioGeneral Surgery Department, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5685-5022
Gaetano GalloGeneral Surgery Department, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1066-4671
Giles Bond-SmithSurgical Emergency Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7385-7521

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvantages of Enhanced Recovery (ER) programmes in colorectal surgery have already been demonstrated, but heterogeneity exists with respect to the choice of compared outcomes. A comprehensive classification aimed at standardizing the reporting of surgical outcomes has been proposed and validated.

methodClinical variables of 231 patients who underwent colorectal resections within an ER programme from 2013-2018 were analysed. Their outcomes have been reported according to a new classification in 5 classes and 11 subclasses. Prognostic variables have been identified.

resultsSeventy-nine patients (34.2%) had an optimal class 1 outcome. Almost half of the patients had an uneventful recovery after being discharged after day 4 (2a). Only two patients (0.9%) were discharged early and then readmitted for a minor ailment (2b). Total morbidity was 12.6% (3a-5). Perioperative mortality was 2.6% (5). Young age, laparoscopic resection, and years of experience with ER have been identified as independent prognostic factors towards a totally positive outcome.

conclusionsThe proposed outcome classification is a simple and objective tool to report the surgical outcome in clinical studies. Its implementation seems to be appropriate, in particular, in the field of ER protocols in colorectal surgery, but it can have a wider application in any other surgical subspeciality.

Identifiers

PMID34056059
PMCPMC8131168

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.