Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Guidelines and Hospital Length of Stay, Readmission, Complications, and Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: A comprehensive review of the evidence exploring the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines has not been completed. Objective: To evaluate if ERAS guidelines are associated with improved hospital length of stay, hospital readmission, complications, and mortality compared with usual surgical care, and to understand differences in estimates based on study and patient factors. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until June 2021. Study Selection: Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials that examined ERAS-guided surgery compared with a control group and reported on at least 1 of the outcomes. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were abstracted in duplicate using a standardized data abstraction form. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates for each outcome, and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity within each outcome. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcomes were hospital length of stay, hospital readmission within 30 days of index discharge, 30-day postoperative complications, and 30-day postoperative mortality. Results: Of the 12 047 references identified, 1493 full texts were screened for eligibility, 495 were included in the systematic review, and 74 RCTs with 9076 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies presented data from 21 countries and 9 ERAS-guided surgical procedures with 15 (20.3%) having a low risk of bias. The mean (SD) Reporting on ERAS Compliance, Outcomes, and Elements Research checklist score was 13.5 (2.3). Hospital length of stay decreased by 1.88 days (95% CI, 0.95-2.81 days; I2 = 86.5%; P < .001) and the risk of complications decreased (risk ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; I2 = 78.6%; P < .001) in the ERAS group. Risk of readmission and mortality were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, ERAS guidelines were associated with decreased hospital length of stay and complications. Future studies should aim to improve implementation of ERAS and increase the reach of the guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".