SynthesisInternational wound journal2022
Rapid rehabilitation effect on complications, wound infection, anastomotic leak, obstruction, and hospital re-admission for gastrointestinal surgery subjects: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk and protective factors for postoperative anastomotic leakage in esophageal and gastrointestinal surgery: an umbrella review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Rapid rehabilitation effect on complications, wound infection, anastomotic leak, obstruction, and hospital re-admission for gastrointestinal surgery subjects: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2022Pooled it
- RETRACTION: Rapid Rehabilitation Effect on Complications, Wound Infection, Anastomotic Leak, Obstruction, and Hospital Re-Admission for Gastrointestinal Surgery Subjects: A Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-03-17Author Unresponsive · Compromised Peer Review · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects. A systematic literature search up to October 2021 was done and 31 studies included 4448 subjects with gastrointestinal surgery at the start of the study: 2242 of them were provided with rapid rehabilitation and 2206 were standard care. They were reporting relationships about the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects using the dichotomous method with a random- or fixed-effect model. Rapid rehabilitation had significantly lower complications (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.71, P < .001) and wound infection (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98, P = .03) compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. However, rapid rehabilitation had no significant effect on the anastomotic leak (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.22, P = .49), obstruction (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, -0.64 to 1.31, P = .65), and hospital re-admission (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57-1.08, P = .13) compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. Rapid rehabilitation had significantly lower complications and wound infection, and had no significant effect on the anastomotic leak, obstruction, and hospital re-admission compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. Further studies are required to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.