Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37451689›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2023

Patient-reported nausea after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for gynae-oncology patients.

Kristina Lindemann, Svana Heimisdottir Danbolt, Lene Ramberg, Brynhildur Eyjólfsdóttir, Yun Yong Wang, Anne Gjertine Heli-Haugestøl, Sara L Walcott, Odd Mjåland, Gerd Anita Navestad, Silje Hermanrud and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kristina LindemannDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway klinde@ous-hf.no.ORCID 0000-0002-2162-0175
Svana Heimisdottir DanboltDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lene RambergDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.
Brynhildur EyjólfsdóttirDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Yun Yong WangDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Anne Gjertine Heli-HaugestølDepartment of Clinical Service, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Sara L WalcottDepartment of Clinical Service, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Odd MjålandDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Gerd Anita NavestadDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Silje HermanrudDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Knut Erling Juul-HansenDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo, Norway.
Line K BragstadDepartment of Public Health Science and CHARM Research Centre for Habilitation and Rehabilitation models & services, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9645-3770
Randi OpheimDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Andreas KleppeInstitute of Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8370-5289
Ulf KongsgaardInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of Oslo · NOAkershus University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to analyze the adherence to strategies to prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for gynae-oncology patients. Patient-reported nausea before and after ERAS was also studied.

methodsThis prospective observational study included all patients undergoing laparotomy for a suspicious pelvic mass or confirmed advanced ovarian cancer before (pre-ERAS) and after the implementation of ERAS (post-ERAS) at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Patients were a priori stratified according to the planned extent of surgery into two cohorts (Cohort 1: Surgery of advanced disease; Cohort 2: Surgery for a suspicious pelvic tumor). Clinical data including baseline characteristics and outcome data were prospectively collected.

resultsA total of 439 patients were included, 243 pre-ERAS and 196 post-ERAS. At baseline, 27% of the patients reported any grade of nausea. In the post-ERAS cohort, statistically significantly more patients received double post-operative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (64% pre-ERAS vs 84% post-ERAS, p<0.0001). There was no difference in the need for rescue medication (82% pre-ERAS vs 79% post-ERAS; p=0.17) and no statistically significant difference between pre- and post-ERAS or between the surgical cohorts in patient-reported nausea of any grade on day 2. Patients who reported none/mild nausea on day 2 had significantly less peri-operative fluid administered during surgery than those who reported moderate or severe nausea (median 12.5 mL/kg/hour vs 16.5 mL/kg/hour, p=0.045) but, in multivariable analysis, fluid management did not remain significantly associated with nausea.

conclusionImplementation of an ERAS protocol increased the adherence to post-operative nausea and vomiting prevention guidelines. Nausea, both before and after laparotomy, remains an unmet clinical need of gynae-oncology patients also in an ERAS program. Patient-reported outcome measures warrant further investigation in the evaluation of ERAS.

Indexed as

Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryOvarian NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleHumansLength of StayNauseaObservational Studies as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesVomitinggynecologic surgical proceduresovarian cancerpostoperative carepreoperative carequality of life (PRO)/palliative care

Identifiers

PMID37451689
PMCPMC10423539
OpenAlexW4384342640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.