SynthesisUpdates in surgery2026
Effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients with colorectal surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For colorectal surgery patients, prehabilitation can address common challenges in recovery, including muscle wasting, malnutrition, and emotional stress. This study aim to determine the impact of prehabilitation for patients with after colorectal surgery. We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception up to April 2024. Two authors assessed the risk of bias by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2. We computed mean difference (MD) on the basis of change values, with 95% credible interval (CI), for continuous outcomes (length of hospital stays (LOS and 6-min walk test (6MWT)), and risk ratios (RR) for categorical outcomes (number of patients with a complication). We conducted random effects meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework in R (RStudio, Boston, MA) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation. Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published were identified. Low-certainty evidence demonstrated that prehabilitation of exercise (3 studies; 185 patients; MD = 0.84, 95% CI -0.57 to 2.24), nutrition (3 studies; 279 patients; MD = -0.19, 95% CI -1.77 to 1.38), and exercise + nutrition (1 study; 44 patients; MD = -1.0, 95% CI -3.07 to 1.07), which may not differently when compared to standard care for LOS. Moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated that prehabilitation of exercise + nutrition + psychosocial (3 studies; 487 patients; MD = 51.57, 95% CI 14.39 to 88.76) probably increase patients' 6WMT. Low or very low certainty evidence demonstrated that prehabilitation of exercise (2 studies; 164 patients; RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59), nutrition (3 studies; 279 patients; RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41), exercise + nutrition (1 study; 44 patients; RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.13), and exercise + nutrition + psychosocial (4 studies; 408 patients; RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0), which may not differently when compared to standard care for reduce patients' with a complication. The moderate-certainty evidence supporting an increase in 6MWT with the exercise + nutrition + psychosocial intervention highlights a potential benefit of this comprehensive approach; however, most comparisons are informed by limited data, yielding low to very low certainty evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41495596What 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.