Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized clinical trial on enhanced recovery versus standard care following open liver resection

Open access
Jones, C, Kelliher, L, Dickinson, M, Riga, A, Worthington, T, Scott, M J, Vandrevala, T, Fry, C H, Karanjia, N, Quiney, N·2013·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) have been shown to reduce length of hospital stay (LOS) and complications in colorectal surgery. Whether ERPs have the same benefits in open liver resection surgery is unclear, and randomized clinical trials are lacking. Methods: Consecutive patients scheduled for open liver resection were randomized to an ERP group or standard care. Primary endpoints were time until medically fit for discharge (MFD) and LOS. Secondary endpoints were postoperative morbidity, pain scores, readmission rate, mortality, quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction. ERP elements included greater preoperative education, preoperative oral carbohydrate loading, postoperative goal-directed fluid therapy, early mobilization and physiotherapy. Both groups received standardized anaesthesia with epidural analgesia. Results: The analysis included 46 patients in the ERP group and 45 in the standard care group. Median MFD time was reduced in the ERP group (3 days versus 6 days with standard care; P < 0·001), as was LOS (4 days versus 7 days; P < 0·001). The ERP significantly reduced the rate of medical complications (7 versus 27 per cent; P = 0·020), but not surgical complications (15 versus 11 per cent; P = 0·612), readmissions (4 versus 0 per cent; P = 0·153) or mortality (both 2 per cent; P = 0·987). QoL over 28 days was significantly better in the ERP group (P = 0·002). There was no difference in patient satisfaction. Conclusion: ERPs for open liver resection surgery are safe and effective. Patients treated in the ERP recovered faster, were discharged sooner, and had fewer medical-related complications and improved QoL. Registration number: ISRCTN03274575 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

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.9165

Cites

25 of 25 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 266

Metadata

Authors
Jones, C., Kelliher, L., Dickinson, M., Riga, A., Worthington, T., Scott, M. J., Vandrevala, T., Fry, C. H., Karanjia, N., & Quiney, N.
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2013-05-21
Volume
100
Issue
8
Pages
1015-1024
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W1841880474
Cited by
266
References
25
FWCI
29.04
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.