ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2025
Comparative Efficacy of Different Prehabilitation Strategies in Colorectal Surgery Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting which colorectal cancer patients are most likely to improve their functional capacity with pre-surgery prehabilitation: a retrospective study based on the 6-min walk distance.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the effect of various prehabilitation strategies on postoperative functional capacity, complication rates, length of hospital stay, and readmission rates in colorectal surgery patients through a network meta-analysis. Date Sources: A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to April 2025. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials comparing different prehabilitation strategies (multimodal prehabilitation, exercise-only, nutrition-only, and postoperative rehabilitation) with standard care or against each other were included Data Extraction: Two investigators independently screened titles/abstracts and assessed full texts for eligibility, with discrepancies resolved through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. The extracted data included the first author's name, publication year, country, design, sample size, participants' age, sex, pathology, surgical procedure, intervention type, and reported outcomes. Data Synthesis: Fifteen studies involving 1290 participants were included. Compared with standard care, exercise intervention (mean difference, 62.85m; 95% CI, 9.44-116.12m) and multimodal prehabilitation (mean difference, 29.36m; 95% CI, 1.98-67.01m) significantly improved 6-minute walk test performance. Multimodal prehabilitation demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), whereas other intervention methods showed no significant differences compared with standard care. The results of the network meta-analysis indicated that the best probability of improving the 6-minute walk test results was exercise intervention > multimodal prerehabilitation > nutritional intervention > postoperative rehabilitation > standard care. Heterogeneity across studies was low (I²<30%), with minimal risk of publication bias. Conclusions: Multimodal prehabilitation emerges as the optimal preoperative strategy for colorectal surgery patients, significantly reducing complication risks and enhancing functional capacity. Exercise-only interventions also demonstrate clinically meaningful benefits in functional improvement. Tailored prehabilitation protocols should be implemented based on patient-specific needs and resource availability.
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.