Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34764842›Full record

ReviewSaudi journal of anaesthesia

Enhanced recovery after thoracic anesthesia.

Mert Senturk, Zerrin Sungur

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mert SenturkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Zerrin SungurDepartment of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Istanbul University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the concept of "Perioperative Medicine" has been evolved to a more concrete and sophisticated approach called "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" (ERAS). ERAS has been first introduced in colorectal surgery by a dedicated leading ERAS® society, ERAS-criteria has been subsequently extended into several types of surgery, including thoracic surgery. Anesthesiology has always been one of the most important components of the multidisciplinary perioperative approaches, which is also valid for ERAS. There are several guidelines published on the enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery (ERATS). This article focuses on the "official" ERATS protocols of a joint consensus of two different societies. Regarding thoracic anesthesia, there are some challenges to be dealt with. The first challenge, although there is a large number of studies published on thoracic anesthesia, only a very few of them have studied the overall outcome and quality of recovery; and only few of them were powered enough to provide sufficient evidence. This has led to the fact that some components of the protocol are debatable. The second challenge, the adherence to individual elements and the overall compliance are poorly reported and also hard to apply even in the best organized centers. This article explains and discusses the debatable viewpoints on the elements of the ERATS protocol published in 2019 aiming to achieve a list for the future steps required for a more effective and evidence-based ERATS protocol.

Indexed as

Enhanced recoveryperioperative medicinethoracic anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID34764842
PMCPMC8579505
OpenAlexW3177040920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.