The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Adherence to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol and Outcomes After Colorectal Cancer Surgery
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the impact of different adherence levels to the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol and the effect of various ERAS elements on outcomes following major surgery. DESIGN: Single-center prospective cohort study before and after reinforcement of an ERAS protocol. Comparisons were made both between and across periods using multivariate logistic regression. All clinical data (114 variables) were prospectively recorded. SETTING: Ersta Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. PATIENTS: Nine hundred fifty-three consecutive patients with colorectal cancer: 464 patients treated in 2002 to 2004 and 489 in 2005 to 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The association between improved adherence to the ERAS protocol and the incidence of postoperative symptoms, complications, and length of stay following major colorectal cancer surgery was analyzed. RESULTS: Following an overall increase in preoperative and perioperative adherence to the ERAS protocol from 43.3% in 2002 to 2004 to 70.6% in 2005 to 2007, both postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.98) and symptoms (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.70) declined significantly. Restriction of intravenous fluid and use of a preoperative carbohydrate drink were major independent predictors. Across periods, the proportion of adverse postoperative outcomes (30-day morbidity, symptoms, and readmissions) was significantly reduced with increasing adherence to the ERAS protocol (>70%, >80%, and >90%) compared with low ERAS adherence (<50%). CONCLUSION: Improved adherence to the standardized multimodal ERAS protocol is significantly associated with improved clinical outcomes following major colorectal cancer surgery, indicating a dose-response relationship.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lassen, K., Kjæve, J., Fetveit, T., Tranø, G., Sigurdsson, H. K., Horn, A., & Revhaug, A. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31815cca68 · Cited by 313
Cited by
Gustafsson, U. O., Scott, M. J., Hubner, M., Nygren, J., Demartines, N., Francis, N., Rockall, T. A., Young‐Fadok, T. M., Hill, A. G., Soop, M., et al. (2019) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y · Cited by 2,119
Self-citationLow, D. E., Allum, W., De Manzoni, G., Ferri, L., Immanuel, A., Kuppusamy, M., Law, S., Lindblad, M., Maynard, N., Neal, J., et al. (2019) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4786-4 · Cited by 641
ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease
Forbes, A., Escher, J., Hébuterne, X., Kłęk, S., Krznaric, Z., Schneider, S., Shamir, R., Stardelova, K., Wierdsma, N., Wiskin, A. E., et al. (2017) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2016.12.027 · Cited by 625
RetractedGillis, C., Buhler, K., Bresee, L., Carli, F., Gramlich, L., Culos-Reed, N., Sajobi, T. T., & Fenton, T. R. (2018) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.05.012 · Cited by 541
Temple-Oberle, C., Shea-Budgell, M. A., Tan, M., Semple, J. L., Schrag, C., Barreto, M., Blondeel, P., Hamming, J., Dayan, J., & Ljungqvist, O. (2017) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003242 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Gustafsson, U. O.
- Venue
- Archives of Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2011-05-01
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 571
- ISSN
- 0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2056083761
- Cited by
- 936
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 33.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adherence to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol and Outcomes After Colorectal Cancer Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.2010.309
- The paper
- Gustafsson, U. O. (2011). Adherence to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol and Outcomes After Colorectal Cancer Surgery. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2010.309
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.