| Title |
The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in liver surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-1793-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wei Song, Kai Wang, Run-jin Zhang, Qi-xin Dai, Shu-bing Zou |
| Abstract |
The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program aims to attenuate the surgical stress response and decrease postoperative complications. It has increasingly replaced conventional approaches in surgical care. To evaluate the benefits and harms of the ERAS program compared to conventional care in patients undergoing liver surgery. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. All RCTs that compared the ERAS program with conventional care were selected. Four RCTs were eligible for analysis, which included 634 patients (309 ERAS vs. 325 conventional). Overall morbidity (RR 0.67; 95 % CI 0.48-0.92; p = 0.01), primary length of stay (WMD -2.71; 95 % CI -3.43 to -1.99; p < 0.00001), total length of stay (WMD -2.10; 95 % CI -3.96 to -0.24; p = 0.03), time of functional recovery (WMD -2.30; 95 % CI -3.77 to -0.83; p = 0.002), and time to first flatus (SMD, -0.52; 95 % CI -0.69 to -0.35; p < 0.00001) were significantly shortened in the ERAS group. Quality of life was also better in the ERAS group. However, no significant differences were noted in mortality, readmission rates, operative time and intraoperative blood loss. The ERAS Program for liver surgery significantly reduced overall morbidity rates, accelerated functional recovery, and shortened the primary and total hospital stay without compromising readmission rates. Therefore, ERAS appears to be safe and effective. However, the conclusions are limited because of the low methodological quality of the analyzed studies. Further studies are needed to provide more solid evidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 16% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 1% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 21 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,449,393
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,260
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,206
of 297,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#109
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.