ReviewCureus2025
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathways and Obstetric Anesthesia: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are being used exceedingly all over the world, research on ERAS and obstetric anesthesia is expanding. The necessity for uniform guidelines is highlighted by the notable regional and institutional differences in ERAS pathway implementation. Bibliometric research can identify these differences, which promotes a more consistent use of evidence-based procedures. The present bibliographic analysis reviewed 866 documents from the Scopus database using the keywords "enhanced recovery after surgery, ERAS, and Obstetrics Anesthesia." An increased number of articles were added to the database from 2017, with 175 articles in 2024. VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20, Leiden University, Netherlands) was used to investigate the various aspects of bibliometric analysis. The five aspects that were analyzed were co-authorship, co-occurrence, citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-citation. The United States of America had the maximum number of articles, citations, organizations, co-authorship, and co-citation with other authors, organizations, and countries. In the citations category, Gustafsson had the maximum number of citations in documents, and Anesthesia and Analgesia had the maximum number of citations in a journal. A thorough summary of the development of the field of ERAS in obstetric anesthesia can be found in this bibliometric analysis. This analysis has identified important research contributions, significant authors, and new trends by looking at publications, citations, and collaborations. Future research, policymaking, and clinical practice could benefit greatly from this information.
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.