Cited by 312Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy

Prehabilitation in adult patients undergoing surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

Open access
McIsaac, Daniel I., Gill, Marlyn, Boland, Laura, Hutton, Brian, Branje, Karina, Shaw, Julia, Grudzinski, Alexa L., Barone, Natasha +37 more·2022·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

BACKGROUND The certainty that prehabilitation improves postoperative outcomes is not clear. The objective of this umbrella review (i.e. systematic review of systematic reviews) was to synthesise and evaluate evidence for prehabilitation in improving health, experience, or cost outcomes. METHODS We performed an umbrella review of prehabilitation systematic reviews. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute's database, and Web of Science were searched (inception to October 20, 2020). We included all systematic reviews of elective, adult patients undergoing surgery and exposed to a prehabilitation intervention, where health, experience, or cost outcomes were reported. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Primary syntheses of any prehabilitation were stratified by surgery type. RESULTS From 1412 titles, 55 systematic reviews were included. For patients with cancer undergoing surgery who participate in any prehabilitation, moderate certainty evidence supports improvements in functional recovery. Low to very low certainty evidence supports reductions in complications (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery), non-home discharge (orthopaedic surgery), and length of stay (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery). There was low to very low certainty evidence that exercise prehabilitation reduces the risk of complications, non-home discharge, and length of stay. There was low to very low certainty evidence that nutritional prehabilitation reduces risk of complications, mortality, and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS Low certainty evidence suggests that prehabilitation may improve postoperative outcomes. Future low risk of bias, randomised trials, synthesised using recommended standards, are required to inform practice. Optimal patient selection, intervention design, and intervention duration must also be determined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bja.2021.11.014

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McIsaac, D. I., Gill, M., Boland, L., Hutton, B., Branje, K., Shaw, J., Grudzinski, A. L., Barone, N., Gillis, C., Akhtar, S., Atkins, M., Aucoin, S., Auer, R., Basualdo-Hammond, C., Beaule, P., Brindle, M., Bittner, H., Bryson, G., Carli, F., Eskander, A., Fata, P., Fergusson, D., Fiore, J., Forster, A., Gillam, M., Gramlich, L., Holroyd-Leduc, J., Jackson, T., Jacobsohn, E., Khadaroo, R., Lalu, M., Love, C., Martel, G., McCartney, C., McKeen, D., Meliambro, A., Moloo, H., Moore, R., Muscedere, J., Nantel, J., Poitras, S., Scheede-Bergdahl, C., Taljaard, M., Wallace, T., & Wijeysundera, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Alberta Health Services (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
  • Sunnybrook Hospital (CA)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
  • Carleton University (CA)
  • Kingston General Hospital (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
  • McIsaac, Daniel I.
  • Akhtar, Shamsuddin
  • Atkins, Marlis
  • Aucoin, Sylvie
  • Auer, Rebecca
  • Brindle, Mary
  • Bittner, Honorata
  • Bryson, Gregory
  • Carli, Franco
  • Eskander, Antoine
  • Fata, Paola
  • Fergusson, Dean
  • Fiore, Julio
  • Forster, Alan
  • Gillam, Melani
  • Gramlich, Leah
  • Holroyd-Leduc, Jayna
  • Jackson, Timothy
  • Jacobsohn, Eric
  • Khadaroo, Rachel
  • Lalu, Manoj
  • Love, Cameron
  • Martel, Guillaume
  • McCartney, Colin
  • McKeen, Dolores
  • Meliambro, Amanda
  • Moloo, Husein
  • Moore, Ronald
  • Muscedere, John
  • Nantel, Julie
  • Taljaard, Monica
  • Wallace, Tom
  • Wijeysundera, Duminda
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-02
Volume
128
Issue
2
Pages
244-257
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200413066
Cited by
312
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 82 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 39
FWCI
9.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Keywords
prehabilitation, elective surgery, postoperative outcomes, cancer surgery, exercise prehabilitation, nutritional prehabilitation, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, functional recovery, non-home discharge, cardiovascular surgery, orthopedic surgery, patient selection
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Preoperative Exercise, Adult, Humans, Length of Stay, Postoperative Complications, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Elective Surgical Procedures, Patient Selection, Nutrition Therapy

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