ArticleGland surgery2024
Initial experience with the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in gynecologic surgery at an urban academic tertiary medical center.
Article in Gland surgery, 2024. 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.
- Association between nursing execution and postoperative recovery following laparoscopic benign gynecologic surgery: a prospective observational cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been consistently associated with improved patient experience and surgical outcomes. Despite the release of ERAS Society guidelines specific to gynecologic oncology, the adoption of ERAS in gynecology on global level has been disappointingly low and some centers have shown minimal improvement in clinical outcomes after adopting ERAS. The aim of this study is to describe the development and early experience of ERAS protocols in gynecologic surgery at an urban academic tertiary medical center. Methods: This was an observational prospective cohort study. The target patient population included those with low comorbidities who were scheduled to undergo various types of gynecologic surgeries for both benign and malignant diseases between October 2020 and February 2021. Two attending surgeons implemented the protocols for their patients (ERAS cohort) while three attending surgeons maintained the conventional perioperative care for their patients (non-ERAS cohort). Baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes and patients' answers to a 12-question survey were compared. A case-matched comparative analysis was also performed between the ERAS cohort and the historical non-ERAS cohort (those who received the same types of surgical procedures from the two ERAS attending surgeons prior to the implementation of the protocols). Results: A total of 244 patients were evaluated (122 in the ERAS cohort Conclusions: The results of the study demonstrated the safety, clinical feasibility and benefits of the ERAS protocols for patients undergoing gynecologic surgeries for both benign and malignant indications.
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.