ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been widely adopted in perioperative care, but their effectiveness and safety in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery remain subjects of ongoing investigation. To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS protocols compared with conventional care in elderly patients (≥65 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies comparing ERAS with conventional care in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were included. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included total complication rate, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission rate. ERAS components, protocol compliance, baseline characteristics, and complication definitions were extracted when available. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models with subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: Fifteen studies (6 RCTs and 9 prospective cohort studies) involving 2,397 patients were included. Most studies evaluated colorectal surgery, while two involved hepatectomy and two involved gastrectomy. ERAS pathways consistently included early feeding, early mobilization, and reduced routine tube use, but reporting of protocol details and compliance was variable; overall compliance was reported in 6 of 15 studies (range 42%-89.6%). ERAS significantly reduced LOS compared with conventional care (MD = -3.31 days, 95% CI: -3.74 to -2.88, Conclusions: ERAS protocols appear effective and generally safe in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, reducing hospital stay and postoperative complications without increasing readmission rates. However, interpretation should account for variability in ERAS implementation, incomplete compliance reporting, and the combination of randomized and prospective cohort evidence. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261381194, PROSPERO CRD420261381194.
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.