Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection

Maessen, J, Dejong, C H C, Hausel, J, Nygren, J, Lassen, K, Andersen, J, Kessels, A G H, Revhaug, A, Kehlet, H, Ljungqvist, O, Fearon, K C H, von Meyenfeldt, M F·2007·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Single-centre studies have suggested that enhanced recovery can be achieved with multimodal perioperative care protocols. This international observational study evaluated the implementation of an enhanced recovery programme in five European centres and examined the determinants affecting recovery and length of hospital stay. Methods: Four hundred and twenty-five consecutive patients undergoing elective open colorectal resection above the peritoneal reflection between January 2001 and January 2004 were enrolled in a protocol that defined multiple perioperative care elements. One centre had been developing multimodal perioperative care for 10 years, whereas the other four had previously undertaken traditional care. Results: The case mix was similar between centres. Protocol compliance before and during the surgical procedure was high, but it was low in the immediate postoperative phase. Patients fulfilled predetermined recovery criteria a median of 3 days after operation but were actually discharged a median of 5 days after surgery. Delay in discharge and the development of major complications prolonged length of stay. Previous experience with fast-track surgery was associated with a shorter hospital stay. Conclusion: Functional recovery in 3 days after colorectal resection could be achieved in daily practice. A protocol is not enough to enable discharge of patients on the day of functional recovery; more experience and better organization of care may be required.

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.5468

Cites

27 of 27 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 533

Metadata

Authors
Maessen, J., Dejong, C. H. C., Hausel, J., Nygren, J., Lassen, K., Andersen, J., Kessels, A. G. H., Revhaug, A., Kehlet, H., Ljungqvist, O., Fearon, K. C. H., & von Meyenfeldt, M. F.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2007-01-04
Volume
94
Issue
2
Pages
224-231
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2139837218
Cited by
533
References
27
FWCI
23.54
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.