ReviewCureus2025
Enhancing Recovery in Gastrointestinal and Cardiovascular Surgeries Through Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Comment on "Evidence-based practice and future development of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in urology: a multidimensional assessment based on the GRADE system".Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Preoperative carbohydrate volume optimization in ERAS-guided minimally invasive gastrectomy: a single-blinded RCT assessing gastric residuals and metabolic safety profiles.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols aim to improve perioperative outcomes and expedite recovery across various surgical specialties. While ERAS protocols have shown significant benefits in gastrointestinal and cardiovascular surgeries, their impact and effectiveness require further synthesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of ERAS protocols in enhancing recovery and reducing complications in gastrointestinal and cardiovascular surgeries. High-quality studies were selected based on adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A systematic review and meta-analysis of six high-quality studies involving 45,678 patients were conducted using databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central. Data on length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, 30-day readmissions, and mortality were extracted. Statistical analysis employed random-effects models to calculate pooled effect sizes, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios. Subgroup analyses were performed based on surgery type, patient age, comorbidities, and follow-up duration. ORs for postoperative complications varied across subgroups (e.g., urgent vs. elective surgeries), with some ranges (e.g., 0.65-1.02) reflecting mixed effects; sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of pooled outcomes. Recovery times ranged from 1 to 3 days for gastrointestinal surgeries and 4 to 9 days for cardiovascular surgeries, demonstrating clinically meaningful variability. ERAS protocols showed greater recovery benefits in urgent surgeries (HR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.15-1.75) and in patients with comorbidities (HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.33-1.96), likely due to their emphasis on rapid stabilization of perioperative care, including early mobilization and nutritional support. Heterogeneity, assessed through sensitivity analyses, ranged from moderate to substantial across subgroup analyses. ERAS protocols consistently enhance recovery outcomes, minimize complications, and reduce hospital stays in gastrointestinal and cardiovascular surgeries, demonstrating their utility in optimizing perioperative care. Future research should explore long-term outcomes and tailored implementation strategies to address patient-specific needs.
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.