| Title |
ERAS protocol validation in a propensity-matched cohort of patients undergoing colorectal surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00384-018-3133-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Riccardo Lemini, Aaron C. Spaulding, James M. Naessens, Zhuo Li, Amit Merchea, Julia E. Crook, David W. Larson, Dorin T. Colibaseanu |
| Abstract |
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) provides many benefits. However, important knowledge gaps with respect to specific components of enhanced recovery after surgery remain because of limited validation data. The aim of the study was to validate a mature ERAS protocol at a different hospital and in a similar population of patients. This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery from 2009 through 2016. Patients enrolled in ERAS are compared with those undergoing the standard of care. Patient demographic characteristics, length of stay, pain scores, and perioperative morbidity are described. Patients (1396) were propensity matched into two equal groups (ERAS vs non-ERAS). No significant difference was observed for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, sex, operative approach, and surgery duration. Median length of stay in ERAS and non-ERAS groups was 3 and 5 days (P < .001). Mean pain scores were lower in the ERAS group, measured at discharge from the postanesthesia unit (P < .001), on postoperative day 1 (P = .002) and postoperative day 2 (P = .02) but were identical on discharge. This ERAS protocol was validated in a similar patient population but at a different hospital. ERAS implementation was associated with an improved length of stay and pain scores similar to the original study. Different than most retrospective studies, propensity score matching ensured that groups were evenly matched. To our knowledge, this study is the only ERAS validation study in a propensity-matched cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 67% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 17% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,504,539
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#305
of 1,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,711
of 329,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,846 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 329,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.