Enhanced recovery protocol vs usual care: Serious adverse events (number)
It is very uncertain whether enhanced recovery protocol changes serious adverse events (number) compared with standard care (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Serious adverse events (number) · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery It is very uncertain whether enhanced recovery protocol changes serious adverse events (number) compared with standard care (very low certainty). Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Rate ratio 0.72 [0.45, 1.13] | 7 studies · 859 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.