ArticleMedicine2026
Enhanced recovery after surgery nursing pathway and prognosis assessment in lung cancer patients: A retrospective clinical study.
Article in Medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The value of applying enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in the perioperative management of lung cancer requires further high-level evidence. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the ERAS nursing pathway on the recovery and prognosis of patients undergoing radical surgery for lung cancer. A retrospective cohort study design was adopted, including patients who underwent radical lung cancer surgery between January 2022 and January 2024. Based on the nursing model, patients were divided into an ERAS group (n = 121) and a conventional care control group (n = 170). Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding factors, resulting in 104 well-matched patients (52 in each group) for analysis. The ERAS group received multidisciplinary, standardized perioperative interventions. Hospital stay, recovery indicators, complications, quality of life (QoL), and patient experience were compared between the 2 groups. After matching, the postoperative hospital stay and total hospital stay in the ERAS group were significantly shorter than those in the control group (median: 5.0 days vs 8.0 days, P < .001; 9.0 days vs 13.0 days, P < .001). The ERAS group showed significantly earlier times to first ambulation, flatus, oral intake, and chest tube removal (all P < .001). Furthermore, the ERAS group had significantly lower overall complication rates (15.4% vs 36.5%, P = .012) and pulmonary complication rates (9.6% vs 25.0%, P = .035). Additionally, the ERAS group exhibited significantly lower postoperative pain scores, lower incidence of nausea and vomiting, while patient satisfaction and early postoperative QoL scores were significantly higher (all P < .05). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded consistent results, confirming the robustness of the conclusions. For lung cancer patients undergoing radical surgery, implementing the ERAS nursing pathway can safely and effectively accelerate postoperative recovery, significantly shorten hospital stay, reduce the risk of complications, and improve patients' symptom experience and QoL, demonstrating significant clinical value for widespread promotion.
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.