Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 458

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

Zhuang, Cheng-Le, Ye, Xing-Zhao, Zhang, Xiao-Dong, Chen, Bi-Cheng, Yu, Zhen·2013·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/dcr.0b013e3182812842

Cites

36 of 36 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

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 458

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.