SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
The efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in cesarean delivery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. 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.
- Review
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
backgroundGiven the concerns regarding maternal and neonatal safety, the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in cesarean delivery remains controversial and has not been adopted in some regions. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the ERAS pathway with conventional postoperative care, in order to provide evidence on the safety and efficacy of the ERAS protocols.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM were searched from their inception until February 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English or Chinese that compared the ERAS and standard care in cesarean section were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4 software, and the results were presented as forest plots.
resultsOut of 2817 records screened, 10 RCTs comprising 1934 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analyses indicated that ERAS protocols significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD -14.13, 95% CI -25.36 to -2.90; p = 0.01), hospitalization costs (MD -447.85, 95% CI -687.04 to -208.66; p = 0.0002), time to first flatus (MD -9.82, 95% CI -13.54 to -6.10; p < 0.00001), time to first stool (MD -15.35, 95% CI -19.10 to -11.60; p < 0.00001), pain sores (MD -1.54, 95% CI -2.10 to -0.99; p < 0.00001), and postpartum hemorrhage (MD -47.75, 95% CI -69.94 to -25.55; p < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were observed between ERAS and conventional standard recovery in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), urinary retention, postoperative infection, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), 30 days readmission rates, and NICU admission rates.
conclusionsThe adoption of ERAS protocols in cesarean delivery is associated with accelerated postoperative recovery without compromising maternal or neonatal safety. Nevertheless, these findings should be approached with caution due to the limited number and heterogeneity of the studies included.
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.