ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Comparison of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and standard protocol for cesarean delivery: A two-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 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.
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 cesarean delivery (ERAC) protocols have been designed to optimize maternal recovery. Although its potential has been demonstrated, high-quality evidence supporting the efficacy of ERAC protocols remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of anesthesiologist-led bundled ERAC interventions on perioperative adverse events and recovery quality. Methods: In this two-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 122 women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were allocated to receive either conventional care or a bundled ERAC protocol. The ERAC bundle included: preoperative personalized and information-based education; intraoperative prophylactic phenylephrine infusion, mandatory non-opioid analgesia (intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac), prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (ondansetron/dexamethasone), and active fluid warming; and postoperative scheduled ketorolac. The primary outcome was a composite of perioperative adverse events (hypotension, nausea/vomiting, shivering, pruritus, hypothermia, and moderate-to-severe pain). Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, length of hospital stay, pain scores at rest and with movement, the ObsQoR-11 recovery score, and anxiety scores. Results: Among 116 participants who completed the study (57 conventional care, 59 ERAC), the incidence of the primary composite outcome was significantly lower in the ERAC group (45% vs. 71%; absolute risk difference -31.4%, 95% CI -48.1% to -14.7%; odds ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.56; Conclusion: An anesthesiologist-led, bundled ERAC protocol significantly reduced perioperative adverse events and enhanced the quality of recovery after elective cesarean delivery compared to conventional care.
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.