↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Enhanced recovery programs in lung cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Management and Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Enhanced recovery programs in lung cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s150500
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuangjiang Li, Kun Zhou, Guowei Che, Mei Yang, Jianhua Su, Cheng Shen, Pengming Yu

Abstract

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is an effective evidence-based multidisciplinary protocol of perioperative care, but its roles in thoracic surgery remain unclear. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of the ERAS programs for lung cancer surgery. We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify the RCTs that implemented an ERAS program encompassing more than four care elements within at least two phases of perioperative care in lung cancer surgery. The heterogeneity levels between studies were estimated by the Cochrane Collaborations. A qualitative review was performed if considerable heterogeneity was revealed. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference served as the summarized statistics for the meta-analyses. Additional analyses were also performed to perceive potential bias risks. A total of seven RCTs enrolling 486 patients were included. The meta-analysis indicated that the ERAS group patients had significantly lower morbidity rates (RR=0.64; p<0.001), especially the rates of pulmonary (RR=0.43; p<0.001) and surgical complications (RR=0.46; p=0.010), than those of control group patients. No significant reduction was found in the in-hospital mortality (RR=0.70; p=0.58) or cardiovascular complications (RR=1.46; p=0.25). In the qualitative review, most of the evidence reported significantly shortened length of hospital and intensive care unit stay and decreased hospitalization costs in the ERAS-treated patients. No significant publication bias was detected in the meta-analyses. Our review demonstrates that the implementation of an ERAS program for lung cancer surgery can effectively accelerate postoperative recovery and save hospitalization costs without compromising patients' safety. A worldwide consensus guideline is urgently required to standardize the ERAS protocols for elective lung resections in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 30 27%
Unknown 33 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 40 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,519,693
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#69
of 2,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,568
of 330,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,032 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.