Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026
Effects of enhanced recovery after cesarean section on hospital length of stay and Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery score (ObsQoR-11): a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing interest in improving recovery after cesarean section and optimizing the childbirth experience due to the declining fertility rate. However, studies on Enhanced Recovery After Cesarean Section (ERAC) implementation and the parturient's experience remain scarce. This study aims to compare the effects of the ERAC and standard of care (SOC) protocol on hospital length of stay (LOS) and Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery score (ObsQoR-11).
methodsA randomized clinical trial enrolling pregnant women was conducted at a single center. Participants were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to the ERAC group or the SOC group. ERAC protocol involved multiple evidence-based interventions: reduced fasting intervals, early mobilization and function training, early urinary catheter removal, and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was LOS and ObsQoR-11 score. The secondary outcomes were the global health numeric rating scale (NRS), the time to first flatulence, the time to first off-bed activity, and the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Fetal Apgar scores and postoperative complications were recorded.
resultsA total of 140 participants were finally analyzed. There was no significant difference in the LOS between the ERAC and SOC groups (55.0 ± 11.6 h vs. 55.5 ± 12.2 h, P = 0.804). The ObsQoR-11 score was significantly higher in the ERAC group compared with the SOC group (77 [IQR, 59-89.25] vs. 60 [IQR, 50-70], median difference 16, 95% CI 10-22, P < 0.001). The global health NRS score was significantly higher in the ERAC group. The time to first off-bed activity and the time to first flatulence were significantly shorter in the ERAC group. The VAS scores at the postoperative 24 h and 36 h were significantly lower in the ERAC group than in the SOC group. Fetal Apgar scores were similar in both groups. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, urinary retention, wound infection, puerperal sepsis, and readmission between the two groups.
conclusionCompared with the SOC protocol, the ERAC protocol had no significant effect on the LOS while significantly reducing the ObsQoR-11 score and the global health NRS score. Use of an ERAS protocol is feasible and improves recovery quality in parturients. The improvement in recovery experience, without increasing LOS or costs, underscores the intrinsic value of ERAC in promoting patient-centered care.
trial registrationRegistered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100046887) on May 29, 2021. URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=126128 .
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.