Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization of surgical care in patients undergoing major colonic resection

Gatt, M, Anderson, A D G, Reddy, B S, Hayward-Sampson, P, Tring, I C, MacFie, J·2005·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: The aim of this trial was to compare multimodal optimization with conventional perioperative management in a consecutive series of patients undergoing a wide range of colorectal procedures. Methods: Thirty-nine patients undergoing major elective colonic resection were recruited prospectively. Patients were randomized to receive a ten-point multimodal optimization package or conventional perioperative care. All patients were administered epidural analgesia and opiates were avoided. Outcome measures recorded related to length of hospital stay, physical and mental function, and gut function. Results: Optimization was associated with a significantly shorter median (interquartile range) hospital stay compared with conventional care (5 (4–9) versus 7·5 (6–10) days; P = 0·027). Duration of catheterization (P = 0·022) and duration of intravenous infusion (P = 0·007) were also less. Optimization was associated with a quicker recovery of gut function (P = 0·042). Grip strength was maintained in the postoperative period in the optimized group (P = 0·241) but not in the control group (P = 0·049). There were no differences in morbidity or mortality between the groups. Conclusion: Optimization is safe and results in a significant reduction in postoperative stay along with other improved endpoints. This cannot be directly attributed to improvement in any single outcome measure or to the use of epidural analgesia. Improvements are more likely to be multifactorial and may relate to an earlier return of gut function.

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 · 10.1002/bjs.5187

Cites

30 of 30 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 316

Metadata

Authors
Gatt, M., Anderson, A. D. G., Reddy, B. S., Hayward-Sampson, P., Tring, I. C., & MacFie, J.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2005-10-20
Volume
92
Issue
11
Pages
1354-1362
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2145554193
Cited by
316
References
30
FWCI
11.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.