Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37970578›Full record

ReviewVisceral medicine2022

Patient-Tailored Approach for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery.

Steffen Seyfried, Florian Herrle, Patrick Téoule, Alexander Betzler, Christoph Reissfelder

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Visceral medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Steffen SeyfriedDepartment of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Florian HerrleDepartment of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Patrick TéouleDepartment of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Alexander BetzlerDepartment of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Christoph ReissfelderDepartment of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) is increasingly finding its way into clinical practice. ERAS® protocols have not been universally adopted, and they have often been criticized for being difficult to implement. So, the question for more tailor-made approaches arises. Methods: We conducted a literature search on March 16, 2022, using the following search string, which was modified to fit the input of each of the queried databases: ("ERAS®" or "enhanced recovery after surgery" or "fast recovery" or "fast track") and ("tailored" or "individual"). Results: Despite the massive increase in general hits on the subject, stratification according to phenotypic characteristics such as age or a classification according to disease patterns in the sense of specific guidelines is still fundamentally apparent. Evidence suggests that generic protocols can be followed by almost all patients. Prehabilitation, in particular, can be used as an adaptive tool. Conclusion: ERAS® works only in the totality of its tools and can be followed by almost all patients. Prehabilitation is more adaptive and can also increase adherence to ERAS® protocols. A tailored program outside of disease-specific pathways does not seem to be useful.

Indexed as

ERAS®Personalized surgeryPrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID37970578
PMCPMC10642544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.