The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Systematic review of enhanced recovery programmes in colonic surgery
Abstract
Background: Fast track (FT) programmes optimize perioperative care in an attempt to accelerate recovery, reduce morbidity and shorten hospital stay. The aim of this review was to assess FT programmes for elective segmental colonic resections. Methods: A systematic review was performed of all randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials on FT colonic surgery. The main endpoints were number of applied FT elements, hospital stay, readmission rate, morbidity and mortality. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by three observers. Results: Six papers were eligible for analysis (three randomized controlled and three controlled clinical trials), including 512 patients. FT programmes contained a mean of nine (range four to 12) of the 17 FT elements as defined in the literature. Primary hospital stay (weighted mean difference − 1·56 days, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) − 2·61 to − 0·50 days) and morbidity (relative risk 0·54, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·69) were significantly lower for FT programmes. Readmission rates were not significantly different (relative risk 1·17, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 1·86). No increase in mortality was found. Conclusions: FT appears to be safe and shortens hospital stay after elective colorectal surgery. However, as the evidence is limited, a multicentre randomized trial seems justified.
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
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
Gustafsson, U. O., Scott, M. J., Schwenk, W., Demartines, N., Roulin, D., Francis, N., McNaught, C. E., MacFie, J., Liberman, A. S., Soop, M., et al. (2013) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1772-0 · Cited by 1,082
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
Gustafsson, U. O. (2011) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.309 · Cited by 936
Kehlet, H. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60357-8 · Cited by 561
Metadata
- Authors
- Fast Track Multimodal Management Versus Standard Care (LAFA) study group, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) group, Wind, J., Polle, S. W., Fung Kon Jin, P. H. P., Dejong, C. H. C., von Meyenfeldt, M. F., Ubbink, D. T., Gouma, D. J., & Bemelman, W. A.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-06-14
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 800-809
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2166825115
- Cited by
- 681
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.41
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review of enhanced recovery programmes in colonic surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.5384
- The paper
- Fast Track Multimodal Management Versus Standard Care (LAFA) study group, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) group, Wind, J., Polle, S. W., Fung Kon Jin, P. H. P., Dejong, C. H. C., von Meyenfeldt, M. F., Ubbink, D. T., Gouma, D. J., & Bemelman, W. A. (2006). Systematic review of enhanced recovery programmes in colonic surgery. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5384
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.