Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35711611›Full record

ArticlePain research & management2022

Perioperative Protocol of Ankle Fracture and Distal Radius Fracture Based on Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Program: A Multicenter Prospective Clinical Controlled study.

Ting Li, Zhi-Jian Sun, Yan Zhou, Wei-Tong Sun, Peng-Cheng Wang, Xin-Yu Cai, Jun-Bo Liang, Jing-Ming Dong, Da-Peng Zhou, Kai Yu and 23 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pain research & management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

33 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.

Ting LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhi-Jian SunDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yan ZhouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wei-Tong SunDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Peng-Cheng WangDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xin-Yu CaiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Jun-Bo LiangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Taizhou, China.
Jing-Ming DongDepartment of Orthopaedics, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Da-Peng ZhouDepartment of Orthopaedics, The General Hospital of Shenyang Military Command, Shenyang, China.
Kai YuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Peking University BinHai Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Ming-Xin WuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Huizhou Third People's Hospital, Huizhou, China.
Jiu-Sheng HeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Shunyi District Hospital, Beijing, China.
Liang-Yuan WenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China.
Bao-Qing YuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Pudong Hospital, Fudan University Pudong Medical Center, Shanghai, China.
Jian WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, The First Hosptial of Fangshan District, Beijing, China.
Jun YangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Feng-Fei LinDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital of Fuzhou, Fuzhou, China.
Bing-Zuan LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Quanzhou Orthopaedic Traumatological Hospital, Quanzhou, China.
Zong-Xin ShiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Liangxiang Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Bao-Jun WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ai-Guo WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Zhengzhou Orthopaedics Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Gui-Ling PengDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xu SunDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hong-Hao XiaoDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Meng MiDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xia ZhaoDepartment of Nurtrition, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chang-Run LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Gang LiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shao-Liang LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hang-Yu GuDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuan ZhouDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhe-Lun TanDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xin-Bao WuDepartment of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5883-6132
Peking University · CNCapital Medical University · CNBeijing Hospital · CNChina Medical University · CNFifth Tianjin Central Hospital · CNFudan University · CNFuzhou Second Hospital · CNGeneral Hospital of Shenyang Military Region · CNHebei Medical University · CNHuizhou Central People's Hospital · CNShanghai Tenth People's Hospital · CNShunyi Hospital of Beijing Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital · CNTianjin Hospital · CNWenzhou Medical University · CNZhengzhou City Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is aimed to shorten patients' recovery process and improve clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between the ERAS program and the traditional pathway among patients with ankle fracture and distal radius fracture. Methods: This is a multicenter prospective clinical controlled study consisting of 323 consecutive adults with ankle fracture from 12 centers and 323 consecutive adults with distal radial fracture from 13 centers scheduled for open reduction and internal fixation between January 2017 and December 2018. According to the perioperative protocol, patients were divided into two groups: the ERAS group and the traditional group. The primary outcome was the patients' satisfaction of the whole treatment on discharge and at 6 months postoperatively. The secondary outcomes include delapsed time between admission and surgery, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, functional score, and the MOS item short form health survey-36. Results: Data describing 772 patients with ankle fracture and 658 patients with distal radius fracture were collected, of which 323 patients with ankle fracture and 323 patients with distal radial fracture were included for analysis. The patients in the ERAS group showed higher satisfaction levels on discharge and at 6 months postoperatively than in the traditional group ( Conclusions: Perioperative protocol based on the ERAS program was associated with high satisfaction levels, less time in bed, and short hospital stay without increased complication rate and decreased functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Ankle FracturesEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryRadius FracturesAdultHumansLength of StayProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35711611
PMCPMC9197648
OpenAlexW4281720406

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.