Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association Between Use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol and Postoperative Complications in Colorectal Surgery: The Postoperative Outcomes Within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol (POWER) Study

Open access
Ripollés-Melchor, Javier, Ramírez-Rodríguez, José M, Casans-Francés, Rubén, Aldecoa, César, Abad-Motos, Ane, Logroño-Egea, Margarita, García-Erce, José Antonio, Camps-Cervantes, Ángels, Ferrando-Ortolá, Carlos, Suarez de la Rica, Alejandro, Cuellar-Martínez, Ana, Marmaña-Mezquita, Sandra, Abad-Gurumeta, Alfredo, Calvo-Vecino, José M., POWER Study Investigators Group for the Spanish Perioperative Audit and Research Network (REDGERM)·2019·JAMA Surgery

Abstract

Importance: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care has been reported to be associated with improvements in outcomes after colorectal surgery compared with traditional care. Objective: To determine the association between ERAS protocols and outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Postoperative Outcomes Within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol (POWER) Study is a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2084 consecutive adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery who received or did not receive care in a self-declared ERAS center. Patients were recruited from 80 Spanish centers between September 15 and December 15, 2017. All patients included in this analysis had 1 month of follow-up. Exposures: Colorectal surgery and perioperative management were the exposures. Twenty-two individual ERAS items were assessed in all patients, regardless of whether they were included in an established ERAS protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was moderate to severe postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included ERAS adherence, mortality, readmissions, reoperation rates, and hospital length of stay. Results: Between September 15 and December 15, 2017, 2084 patients were included in the study. Of these, 1286 individuals (61.7%) were men; mean age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-77). A total of 879 patients (42.2%) presented with postoperative complications and 566 patients (27.2%) developed moderate to severe complications. The number of patients with moderate or severe complications was lower in the ERAS group (25.2% vs 30.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .01). The overall rate of adherence to the ERAS protocol was 63.6% (IQR, 54.5%-77.3%), and the rate for patients from hospitals self-declared as ERAS was 72.7% (IQR, 59.1%-81.8%) vs non-ERAS institutions, which was 59.1% (IQR, 50.0%-63.6%; P < .001). Adherence quartiles among patients receiving the highest and lowest ERAS components showed that the patients with the highest adherence rates had fewer moderate to severe complications (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46; P < .001), overall complications (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; P < .001), and mortality (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.97; P = .06) compared with those who had the lowest adherence rates. Conclusions and Relevance: An increase in ERAS adherence appears to be associated with a decrease in postoperative complications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0995

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 388

Metadata

Authors
Ripollés-Melchor, J., Ramírez-Rodríguez, J. M., Casans-Francés, R., Aldecoa, C., Abad-Motos, A., Logroño-Egea, M., García-Erce, J. A., Camps-Cervantes, Á., Ferrando-Ortolá, C., Suarez de la Rica, A., Cuellar-Martínez, A., Marmaña-Mezquita, S., Abad-Gurumeta, A., Calvo-Vecino, J. M., & POWER Study Investigators Group for the Spanish Perioperative Audit and Research Network (REDGERM)
Venue
JAMA Surgery
Published
2019-08-01
Volume
154
Issue
8
Pages
725
ISSN
2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944138215
Cited by
388
References
2
FWCI
35.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.