The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia versus parenteral opioid analgesia after colorectal surgery
Abstract
Background: Epidural analgesia (EA) with local anaesthetic is considered to play a key role after colorectal surgery. However, its effect on postoperative recovery is still a matter of debate. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative EA and parenteral opioid analgesia after colorectal surgery was performed. The effect on postoperative recovery was evaluated in terms of length of hospital stay, pain intensity, duration of postoperative ileus, incidence of postoperative complications and side-effects. Results: Sixteen trials published between 1987 and 2005 were included. EA significantly reduced pain scores and duration of ileus (weighted mean difference − 1·55 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) − 2·27 to − 0·84) days). On the other hand, it was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of pruritus (odds ratio (OR) 4·8 (95 per cent c.i. 1·3 to 17·0)), urinary retention (OR 4·3 (1·2 to 15·9)) and arterial hypotension (OR 13·5 (4·0 to 57·7)). EA did not influence duration of hospital stay. Conclusion: Despite improved analgesia and a decrease in ileus, EA has some adverse effects and does not shorten the duration of hospital stay after colorectal surgery.
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
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x · Cited by 3,560
Lewis, S. J., Egger, M., Sylvester, P. A., & Thomas, S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7316.773 · Cited by 858
Balk, E. M. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.22.2973 · Cited by 478
Cited by
Adamina, M., Kehlet, H., Tomlinson, G. A., Senagore, A. J., & Delaney, C. P. (2011) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.11.003 · Cited by 555
Behrns, K. E. (2012) · Yearbook of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ysur.2011.11.001 · Cited by 426
Graphical displays for meta-analysis: An overview with suggestions for practice
Anzures‐Cabrera, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.6 · Cited by 233
Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in coloproctology: interpretation and potential pitfalls
Wille‐Jørgensen, P., & Renehan, A. G. (2008) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01421.x · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Marret, E., Remy, C., & Bonnet, F.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-05-18
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 665-673
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2084113666
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 2.25
- 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: Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia versus parenteral opioid analgesia after colorectal surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.5825
- The paper
- Marret, E., Remy, C., & Bonnet, F. (2007). Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia versus parenteral opioid analgesia after colorectal surgery. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5825
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.
