Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 522

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized clinical trial of prehabilitation in colorectal surgery

Open access
Carli, F, Charlebois, P, Stein, B, Feldman, L, Zavorsky, G, Kim, D J, Scott, S, Mayo, N E·2010·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: ‘Prehabilitation’ is an intervention to enhance functional capacity in anticipation of a forthcoming physiological stressor. In patients scheduled for colorectal surgery, the extent to which a structured prehabilitation regimen of stationary cycling and strengthening optimized recovery of functional walking capacity after surgery was compared with a simpler regimen of walking and breathing exercises. Methods: Some 112 patients (mean(s.d.) age 60(16) years) were randomized to either the structured bike and strengthening regimen (bike/strengthening group, 58 patients) or the simpler walking and breathing regimen (walk/breathing group, 54 patients). Randomization was done at the surgical planning visit; the mean time to surgery available for prehabilitation was 52 days; follow-up was for approximately 10 weeks after surgery. Results: There were no differences between the groups in mean functional walking capacity over the prehabilitation period or at postoperative follow-up. The proportion showing an improvement in walking capacity was greater in the walk/breathing group than in the bike/strengthening group at the end of the prehabilitation period (47 versus 22 per cent respectively; P = 0·051) and after surgery (41 versus 11 per cent; P = 0·019). Conclusion: There was an unexpected benefit from the recommendation to increase walking and breathing, as designed for the control group. Adherence to recommendations was low. An examination of prehabilitation ‘responders’ would add valuable information. Registration number: NCT00227526 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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.7102

Cites

5 of 5 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 522

Metadata

Authors
Carli, F., Charlebois, P., Stein, B., Feldman, L., Zavorsky, G., Kim, D. J., Scott, S., & Mayo, N. E.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2010-05-25
Volume
97
Issue
8
Pages
1187-1197
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2134588880
Cited by
522
References
5
FWCI
13.97
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.