ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Cost-effectiveness comparisons of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of ultra-fast track anesthesia for endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy of palmar hyperhidrosis.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2024Trial
- Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in esophagectomy: a comprehensive review of current practices.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Exploring Home Nutrition Management Experiences in Postoperative Esophageal Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers: A Study Utilizing Patient Journey Mapping.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- The implementation of eras in Belgian esophageal surgery centers.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Factors influencing the length of stay (LOS) undergoing robot-assisted thoracoscopic lung surgery in the setting of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for pediatric patients: a retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Cost-consequence analysis of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in major lung resection with minimally invasive technique (VATS).Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal cancer is a malignant tumor that seriously endangers human health. Compared with surgery alone, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in clinical practice because it can improve perioperative care, minimize complications, and accelerate the recovery of esophageal cancer patients. However, there is a lack of data supporting the cost-effectiveness of ERAS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 968 esophageal cancer patients according to the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the Chinese expert consensus and guidelines, we improved the ERAS protocols consisting of 17 core measures. Subjects receiving >60% of the ERAS optimization measures were classified as the ERAS group, while those receiving <60% were classified as the pre-ERAS group. The demographic information, clinical and cost data of these patients were collected from the medical records. Based on the data distribution, the clinical effects and costs between the two groups were examined using the independent-sample Results: A total of 374 and 594 patients were included in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups, respectively, and there were no significant differences in gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, tumor location, tumor stage, and other basic conditions between the two groups. The intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, postoperative rehabilitation time, postoperative complications, and the number of secondary admissions within 30 days postoperatively of the ERAS group were lower than those of the pre-ERAS group (P<0.05). Compared with the pre-ERAS group, participants in the ERAS group had lower direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost, and indirect cost (P<0.05). Moreover, the cost-effectiveness ratio of the ERAS group (118,439.0 Yuan) was lower than that of the pre-ERAS group (143,369.0 Yuan) with respect to the cure rate. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that compared with pre-ERAS, the application of ERAS in esophageal cancer patients may accelerate postoperative rehabilitation, reduce the length of hospital stays and postoperative complications, and have better cost-effectiveness, highlighting the potential of ERAS to improve the quality of medical care.
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.