ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Enhanced Recovery after Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Following Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Recommendation from Scientific Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to review on the influence of enhanced rehabilitation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery outcomes, specifically focusing on length of hospital stay, hospital costs, pain, morbidity, and patient satisfaction. Following the PRISMA model and using PubMed as a source, eight articles pertaining to prolapse surgery and two articles concerning vaginal hysterectomies were selected, all published between 2014 and 2021. These studies revealed no significant difference in terms of operating time, intra- and post-operative complications, intra-operative blood loss and post-operative pain scores before and after the introduction of the ERAS program. Only one study noted a difference in readmission rates. There was, however, a noticeable decrease in intra-operative and post-operative intravenous intakes, opioid administration, length of stay, and overall hospital costs with the adoption of ERAS. Additionally, with ERAS, patients were able to mobilize more rapidly, and overall patient satisfaction significantly improved.
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.