Cochrane · systematic review · CD007635
Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery
Spanjersberg, WR, Reurings, J, Keus, F, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011 · Cochrane Library
ColorectalAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 50%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%High 1 · 25%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Primary analyses ERAS versus conventional for colorectal surgery
Population: patients with colorectal surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality outpatient Primary analyses ERAS vs conventional | RR 0.53 [0.12, 2.38] | 4 studies · 237 participants | High |
Complications clinical scoring Primary analyses ERAS vs conventional | RR 0.5 [0.35, 0.72] | 4 studies · 577 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Readmissions Primary analyses ERAS vs conventional | RR 0.87 [0.08, 9.39] | 4 studies · 237 participants | Low |
hospital stay days of hospital admittance. Scale from: 1 to 100. Primary analyses ERAS vs conventional | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 237 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |