Cochrane · systematic review · CD008239
Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for women with gynaecological cancers
Chau, JP, Liu, X, Lo, SH, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan CancerAMSTAR 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
8
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 37.5%Low 5 · 62.5%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
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
Enhanced recovery after surgery programme compared to traditional care for women with gynaecological cancers
Population: women with gynaecological cancers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Length of postoperative hospital stay Enhanced recovery after surgery programme vs traditional care | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 638 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Overall postoperative complications (within 30 days of operation) Enhanced recovery after surgery programme vs traditional care | RR 0.71 [0.48, 1.05] | 5 studies · 537 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Mortality (within 30 days of discharge) Enhanced recovery after surgery programme vs traditional care | RR 0.98 [0.14, 6.68] | 1 study · 99 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Readmission (within 30 days of operation) Enhanced recovery after surgery programme vs traditional care | RR 0.45 [0.22, 0.9] | 3 studies · 385 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Time to first flatus (bowel function) Enhanced recovery after surgery programme vs traditional care | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 432 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Time to first defaecation (bowel function) Enhanced recovery after surgery programme vs traditional care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 228 participants | Low Downgraded: indirectness, publication bias |
Participant satisfaction Enhanced recovery after surgery programme vs traditional care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 228 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Economic outcomes Enhanced recovery after surgery programme vs traditional care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 167 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |