ArticleCureus2023
Management of Post-craniotomy Pain in Elective Cases: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Level of evidence of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies for elective craniotomy: An updated systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients undergoing elective craniotomies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating machine learning and neural network architectures for forensic sex estimation using mandibular ramus and notch features on panoramic radiographs.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Postoperative Pain Trajectories After Craniotomy in Brain Tumor Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study of Intensity and Characteristics.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Nutrition optimization in enhanced recovery after brain tumor surgery: scoping review of evidence, gaps, and a proposed perioperative nutrition score.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background
aimThe aim of this study is to prospectively assess the effectiveness of an ERAS protocol for neurosurgery in the treatment of postoperative pain following elective craniotomies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 128 patients were assigned to the ERAS group and received care in accordance with the neurosurgical ERAS regulations, while 130 other participants were assigned to the control group and received traditional postoperative assistance. The participants' postoperative pain ratings using the numerical rating scale (NRS) were this study's main outcome of interest. The verbal NRS uses the numbers 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no sensation of pain and 10 indicating the most severe pain. On postoperative day (POD) 1, the patients' postoperative pain level at the surgical site was evaluated using the NRS. This was repeated every day until the patient either reported feeling no sensation of pain or was discharged home.
resultsThe mean value of pain on the day of surgery was 4.43 ± 0.43 and 4.72 ± 0.68 for patients in the ERAS and control groups, respectively. The pain values were higher in the control group compared to the ERAS group. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.478). The mean value of pain on POD1 was 3.13 ± 0.21 and 4.45 ± 0.95 for patients in the ERAS and control groups, respectively. These pain values were higher in the control group compared to the ERAS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.011). The mean value of pain on POD2 was 2.86 ± 0.3 and 4.33 ± 0.37 for patients in the ERAS and control groups, respectively. The values of pain were higher in the control group compared to the ERAS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.003). The mean value of pain on POD3 was 2.33 ± 0.52 and 4.04 ± 0.15 for patients in the ERAS and control groups, respectively. The pain values were higher in the control group compared to the ERAS group. The difference was meaningful statistically (p < 0.001). The mean value of pain on POD4 was 2.26 ± 0.9 and 2.84 ± 0.13 for the ERAS and control groups, respectively. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.274). The ERAS group had a significantly higher proportion of participants rating their pain between 1 and 3 (68.9%) and a lower proportion rating their pain between 4 and 7 (28.2%), compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Differences in the highest pain ratings (8-10) between the groups were not statistically significant. The duration of hospital stay, beginning from surgery to discharge, was lesser among study participants in the ERAS group, and this finding was statistically significant (p < 0.001).
conclusion
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.