ArticleCureus2026
Reliability of Simplified Versions of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have transformed perioperative care. However, adherence to all ERAS components can be challenging, and the contribution of individual components remains uncertain. This study evaluates ERAS compliance and compares its predictive accuracy with four simplified protocols: a) remove, ambulate, postoperative analgesia, introduce diet (RAPID), b) Basse, c) Nygren, and d) Aarts in colorectal cancer surgery. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted at Vila Santa Catarina Hospital (São Paulo, Brazil) and included patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for adenocarcinoma (2015-2022). ERAS compliance was measured by adherence to 22 components and compared with four simplified protocols (elements four to 12). Outcomes analyzed included stoma-free status, avoidance of readmission, absence of overall and severe complications, and mortality. Predictive accuracy was assessed via area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (p<0.05). Results The study included 410 patients (mean age: 62.3 ±11.5 years; 53.4% female). Laparoscopic surgery was predominant (90%), followed by robotic (6.3%) and open (3.7%) approaches. Mean ERAS compliance was 76.9% (±9%). Postoperative outcomes were 66.3% stoma-free, 92.7% avoided readmission, 68.5% had no complications, 85.9% had no severe complications, and 98.1% survived. ERAS had the highest predictive value for severe complications (AUC: 0.69), similar to Nygren (0.68). Nygren outperformed ERAS for stoma-free (0.7 vs. 0.66) and complications (0.63 vs. 0.62). ERAS had low accuracy for readmission avoidance (AUC: 0.51), with RAPID and Basse performing better. No protocol showed significant superiority in predicting mortality (p>0.05). Conclusions Simplified protocols, especially Nygren and RAPID, showed competitive or superior predictive performance for certain outcomes. While ERAS remains a strong standard, simplified versions appear promising.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.