ArticleBiomedical reports2026
Clinical efficacy and outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery for laparoscopic cervical cancer.
Article in Biomedical reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in laparoscopic cervical cancer surgery. The present study included 230 patients with early stage cervical cancer undergoing laparoscopic surgery, divided into the ERAS (n=103) and non-ERAS (n=127) groups. ERAS interventions included pre-admission education, nutritional optimization, effective pain management, early mobilization and goal-directed fluid therapy. The primary and secondary outcomes measured were length of hospital stay, surgical site infections, urinary tract infections and postoperative pain levels. The median length of surgery was longer in the ERAS group compared with the non-ERAS group. However, the ERAS group experienced a significantly shorter hospital stay (4.1±3.1 days) compared with the non-ERAS group (5.7±3.9 days; P=0.0005). There was a reduction in the overall complications and postoperative infections, although these differences were not statistically significant. Notably, ERAS protocols significant improved in postoperative pain management, reducing severe pain scores from days 1 to day 3 after surgery. In conclusion, the ERAS protocols shortened hospital stays and improved pain management in laparoscopic cervical cancer surgery, underscoring their role in optimizing surgical care and enhancing patient recovery.
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.