The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy
Abstract
Background: Application of evidence-based perioperative care protocols reduces complication rates, accelerates recovery and shortens hospital stay. Presently, there are no comprehensive guidelines for perioperative care for gastrectomy. Methods: An international working group within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society assembled an evidence-based comprehensive framework for optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing gastrectomy. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system and were discussed until consensus was reached within the group. The quality of evidence was rated ‘high’, ‘moderate’, ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Recommendations were graded as ‘strong’ or ‘weak’. Results: The available evidence has been summarized and recommendations are given for 25 items, eight of which contain procedure-specific evidence. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations. Conclusion: The present evidence-based framework provides comprehensive advice on optimal perioperative care for the patient undergoing gastrectomy and facilitates multi-institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomized trials for further research.
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
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU
Van den Berghe, G., Wilmer, A., Hermans, G., Meersseman, W., Wouters, P. J., Milants, I., Van Wijngaerden, E., Bobbaers, H., & Bouillon, R. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052521 · Cited by 3,639
What is ‘quality of evidence’ and why is it important to clinicians?
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.be · Cited by 3,250
A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery
Futier, E., Constantin, J.-M., Paugam-Burtz, C., Pascal, J., Eurin, M., Neuschwander, A., Marret, E., Beaussier, M., Gutton, C., Lefrant, J.-Y., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1301082 · Cited by 1,434
Smith, I., Kranke, P., Murat, I., Smith, A., OʼSullivan, G., Sreide, E., Spies, C., & in’t Veld, B. (2011) · European Journal of Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/eja.0b013e3283495ba1 · Cited by 1,053
Chowdhury, A. H., Cox, E. F., Francis, S. T., & Lobo, D. N. (2012) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318256be72 · Cited by 764
Self-citationLindström, D., Azodi, O. S., Wladis, A., Tønnesen, H., Linder, S., Nåsell, H., Ponzer, S., & Adami, J. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181889d0d · Cited by 530
Lassen, K., Kjæve, J., Fetveit, T., Tranø, G., Sigurdsson, H. K., Horn, A., & Revhaug, A. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31815cca68 · Cited by 313
Self-citationChen, B., Zhou, Y., Yang, P., Wan, H., & Wu, X. (2010) · Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · doi:10.1177/0148607110362532 · Cited by 112
Cited by
Smyth, E. C., Nilsson, M., Grabsch, H. I., van Grieken, N. C., & Lordick, F. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31288-5 · Cited by 4,803
Self-citationESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients
Arends, J., Bachmann, P., Baracos, V., Barthelemy, N., Bertz, H., Bozzetti, F., Fearon, K., Hütterer, E., Isenring, E., Kaasa, S., et al. (2017) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2016.07.015 · Cited by 3,114
Self-citationESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in cancer
Muscaritoli, M., Arends, J., Bachmann, P., Baracos, V., Barthelemy, N., Bertz, H., Bozzetti, F., Hütterer, E., Isenring, E., Kaasa, S., et al. (2021) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.005 · Cited by 1,702
Low, D. E., Allum, W., De Manzoni, G., Ferri, L., Immanuel, A., Kuppusamy, M., Law, S., Lindblad, M., Maynard, N., Neal, J., et al. (2019) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4786-4 · Cited by 641
Self-citationWang, F., Zhang, X., Li, Y., Tang, L., Qu, X., Ying, J., Zhang, J., Sun, L., Lin, R., Qiu, H., et al. (2021) · Cancer Communications · doi:10.1002/cac2.12193 · Cited by 624
Metadata
- Authors
- Mortensen, K., Nilsson, M., Slim, K., Schäfer, M., Mariette, C., Braga, M., Carli, F., Demartines, N., Griffin, S. M., Lassen, K., Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Group, Dejong, C. H. C., Fearon, K. C. F., Ljungqvist, O., Lobo, D. N., & Revhaug, A.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-07-21
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1209-1229
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W1698012405
- Cited by
- 767
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 37.93
- 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.
