The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs Versus Traditional Care for Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs in colorectal surgery aim to attenuate the surgical stress response, reduce complications and shorten hospital stay. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery programs in colorectal surgery in comparison with traditional care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were electronically searched (date range, January 1966 to July 2012). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials were selected that compared enhanced recovery after surgery programs with traditional care in elective colorectal surgery. INTERVENTION: Articles were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers, who extracted the data and assessed the quality of the included studies. The outcome measures were analyzed, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were primary and total postoperative hospital stay, readmission rates, total postoperative complications (including general and surgical complications), and mortality. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (total, 1910 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison with traditional care, enhanced recovery after surgery programs were associated with significantly decreased primary hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -2.44 days; 95% CI, -3.06 to -1.83 days; p < 0.00001), total hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -2.39 days; 95% CI, -3.70 to -1.09 days; p = 0.0003), total complications (relative risk, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; p = 0.0006), and general complications (relative risk, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found for readmission rates, surgical complications, and mortality. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the risk of bias in most included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs are safe and effective, and increased implementation is justified for perioperative care in colorectal surgery. Future studies may examine the benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery programs in elderly patients and in other GI 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.
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Dindo, D., Demartines, N., & Clavien, P.-A. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae · Cited by 31,378
Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample
Hozo, S. P., Djulbegovic, B., & Hozo, I. (2005) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-13 · Cited by 9,062
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation
Kehlet, H. (1997) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/78.5.606 · Cited by 2,827
Evidence-Based Surgical Care and the Evolution of Fast-Track Surgery
Kehlet, H., & Wilmore, D. W. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31817f2c1a · Cited by 1,819
Fearon, K. C. H., Ljungqvist, O., Von Meyenfeldt, M., Revhaug, A., Dejong, C. H. C., Lassen, K., Nygren, J., Hausel, J., Soop, M., Andersen, J., et al. (2005) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2005.02.002 · Cited by 1,693
Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recovery
Kehlet, H., & Dahl, J. B. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14966-5 · Cited by 1,446
Cited by
European evidence based consensus on surgery for ulcerative colitis
Øresland, T., Bemelman, W. A., Sampietro, G. M., Spinelli, A., Windsor, A., Ferrante, M., Marteau, P., Zmora, O., Kotze, P. G., Espin-Basany, E., et al. (2015) · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · doi:10.1016/j.crohns.2014.08.012 · Cited by 353
Promoting perioperative metabolic and nutritional care
Gillis, C., & Carli, F. (2015) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000000795 · Cited by 350
Levolger, S., van Vugt, J. L. A., de Bruin, R. W. F., & IJzermans, J. N. M. (2015) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.9893 · Cited by 270
Merits of exercise therapy before and after major surgery
Hoogeboom, T. J., Dronkers, J. J., Hulzebos, E. H. J., & van Meeteren, N. L. U. (2014) · Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aco.0000000000000062 · Cited by 213
Looijaard, S. M. L. M., Slee-Valentijn, M. S., Otten, R. H. J., & Maier, A. B. (2018) · Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy · doi:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000125 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhuang, C.-L., Ye, X.-Z., Zhang, X.-D., Chen, B.-C., & Yu, Z.
- Venue
- Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
- Published
- 2013-05
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 667-678
- ISSN
- 0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2004442114
- Cited by
- 458
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 38.32
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs Versus Traditional Care for Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/dcr.0b013e3182812842
- The paper
- Zhuang, C.-L., Ye, X.-Z., Zhang, X.-D., Chen, B.-C., & Yu, Z. (2013). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs Versus Traditional Care for Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0b013e3182812842
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.