Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative effectiveness of preoperative prehabilitation modalities for postoperative recovery in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Xiang, Xin, Chen, Qingxin, Yu, Yang·2026·Journal of Gastrointestinal 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.gassur.2026.102481

Cites

28 of 28 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

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Bray, 2024, Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA Cancer J Clin, 74, 229
  2. Molenaar, 2023, Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 5
  3. Zhang, 2022, The effect of prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Front Oncol, 12
  4. Page, 2021, PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews, BMJ, 372, n160, 10.1136/bmj.n160 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Sterne, 2019, RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ, 366, l4898, 10.1136/bmj.l4898 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Higgins, 2003, Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses, BMJ, 327, 557, 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Koet, 2021, Effectiveness of preoperative group education for patients with colorectal cancer: managing expectations, Support Care Cancer, 29, 5263
  8. López-Rodríguez-Arias, 2021, Effect of home-based prehabilitation in an enhanced recovery after surgery program for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, Support Care Cancer, 29, 7785
  9. Northgraves, 2020, Feasibility of a novel exercise prehabilitation programme in patients scheduled for elective colorectal surgery: a feasibility randomised controlled trial, Support Care Cancer, 28, 3197
  10. Triguero-Cánovas, 2023, Home-based prehabilitation improves physical conditions measured by ergospirometry and 6MWT in colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled pilot study, Support Care Cancer, 31, 673
  11. Gao, 2025, Comparative efficacy of different prehabilitation strategies in colorectal surgery patients: a network meta-analysis, Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl, 7

Metadata

Authors
Xiang, X., Chen, Q., & Yu, Y.
Venue
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-09
Volume
30
Issue
9
Pages
102481
ISSN
1091-255X
Cited by
2
References
28
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

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.