Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. A systematic review of enhanced recovery protocols in colorectal surgery. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Rectal/Pelvic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colonic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Fast‐track surgery: the next revolution in surgical care following laparoscopy Effect of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Initial Experiences of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol in Esophageal Surgery Eight years of experience with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in patients with colon cancer: Impact of measures to improve adherence. Observation of clinical efficacy of application of enhanced recovery after surgery in perioperative period on esophageal carcinoma patients. The effect of formalizing enhanced recovery after esophagectomy with a protocol. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Attenuates Stress and Accelerates Recovery in Patients After Radical Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Improving recovery after elective degenerative spine surgery: 5-year experience with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. Prospective study of colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery in a community hospital. Laparoscopic-Assisted and Open High Anterior Resection within an ERAS Protocol Enhanced Recoveryafter Colorectal Surgery. Results from Aprospective Observational Two-Centre Study A prospective cohort study to investigate cost-minimisation, of Traditional open, open fAst track recovery and laParoscopic fASt track multimodal management, for surgical patients with colon carcinomas (TAPAS study) Safety and efficacy of an “enhanced recovery after surgery” protocol for patients undergoing colon cancer surgery: a multi-institutional controlled study Adherence to Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols across a High-Volume Gastrointestinal Surgical Service The effect of enhanced recovery program for patients undergoing partial laparoscopic hepatectomy of liver cancer Two-day Hospital Stay After Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery under an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Pathway Methods for Development of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer Guidelines Does enhanced recovery reduce postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery? The influence of peri-operative factors for accelerated discharge following laparoscopic colorectal surgery when combined with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway. The Impact of Enhanced Recovery Protocol Compliance on Elective Colorectal Cancer Resection: Results From an International Registry. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols Are Valuable in Pancreas Surgery Patients. Enhanced Recovery After Colorectal Surgery (ERAS) in Elderly Patients Is Feasible and Achieves Similar Results as in Younger Patients Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery criteria and preoperative and postoperative counselling reduces length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery: results of a randomized controlled trial Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Between a Pathway of Controlled Rehabilitation With Early Ambulation and Diet and Traditional Postoperative Care After Laparotomy and Intestinal Resection Antibiotics in trauma and orthopedic surgery -- a primer of evidence-based recommendations. Effects of goal-directed fluid therapy on enhanced postoperative recovery: An interventional comparative observational study with a historical control group on oesophagectomy combined with ERAS program. [Application of the protocol of enhanced recovery after surgery in colorectal surgery]. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Versus Conventional Postoperative Care in Colorectal Surgery Canadian Thoracic Society 2012 guideline update: diagnosis and management of asthma in preschoolers, children and adults. Management of Crohn's Disease in Adults The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition Best strategies to implement clinical pathways in an emergency department setting: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial Multimodal prehabilitation in colorectal cancer patients to improve functional capacity and reduce postoperative complications: the first international randomized controlled trial for multimodal prehabilitation Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference Patient outcomes and provider perceptions following implementation of a standardized perioperative care pathway for open liver resection Use of activity tracking in major visceral surgery—the Enhanced Perioperative Mobilization (EPM) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial The social experiences of cancer patients under treatment: a comparative study. Enhanced recovery in colorectal surgery: a multicentre study A prospective study on the influence of a fast-track program on postoperative fatigue and functional recovery after major colonic surgery. Safety, feasibility, and tolerance of early oral feeding after colorectal resection outside an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program ERAS Protocol Reduces IL-6 Secretion in Colorectal Laparoscopic Surgery: Results From a Randomized Clinical Trial Short-term quality of life in patients undergoing colonic surgery using enhanced recovery after surgery program versus conventional perioperative management Management of hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients in non-critical care setting: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. Influences on length of stay in an enhanced recovery programme after colonic surgery The expert consensus guideline series. Treatment of behavioral emergencies 2005. Surgical Stress Reduction in Elderly Patients Undergoing Elective Colorectal Laparoscopic Surgery within an ERAS Protocol. Critical Pathways as a Strategy for Improving Care: Problems and Potential The influence of preoperative nutritional status on the outcomes of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme for colorectal cancer surgery Recovery after open and laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison. Enhanced recovery after liver surgery. Asian Consensus Workshop Report: Expert Consensus Guideline for the Management of Intermediate and Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Asia Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. Local wound infiltration plus transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block versus local wound infiltration in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and ERAS program The RAPID protocol enhances patient recovery after both laparoscopic and open colorectal resections Standardized Reporting of Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization Endoscopic Vascular Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2005 A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence. An Enhanced-Recovery Protocol Improves Outcome After Colorectal Resection Already During the First Year: A Single-Center Experience in 168 Consecutive Patients Urethral catheter‐less robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy NICE guidance on reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to hospital 2017 Focused Update of the 2016 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Non-Statin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways. Spinal analgesia for laparoscopic colonic resection using an enhanced recovery after surgery programme: better analgesia, but no benefits on postoperative recovery: a randomized controlled trial. A randomized comparative study of topical versus intravenous tranexamic acid administration in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) total knee replacement. European Stroke Organisation recommendations to establish a stroke unit and stroke center. Preoperative Nutrition and Postoperative Discomfort in an ERAS Setting: A Randomized Study in Gastric Bypass Surgery Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. The future of fast‐track surgery Improved Recovery Experience Achieved for Women Undergoing Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Model Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline Randomized Trial on Fast Track Care in Colorectal Surgery for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis. ACC/AHA Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices: Executive Summary--a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Pacemaker Implantation). World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the Pharmacological Treatment of Anxiety, Obsessive-Compulsive and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders – First Revision Acute-on-chronic liver failure: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) 2014 The expert consensus guideline series. Optimizing pharmacologic treatment of psychotic disorders. Introduction: methods, commentary, and summary. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: a consensus statement by the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS). Can evidence change the rate of back surgery? A randomized trial of community-based education. Evidence-based guidelines for treating bipolar disorder: Revised third edition recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology Diabetes in Older Adults Routine induction of labour at 41 weeks gestation: nonsensus consensus How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Sufficiently Important Difference Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus Abnormal uterine bleeding in pre-menopausal women. Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid insufficiency in critically ill adult patients: Consensus statements from an international task force by the American College of Critical Care Medicine Managing Preexisting Diabetes for Pregnancy Evidence-based nutrition principles and recommendations for the treatment and prevention of diabetes and related complications. Cost-effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery Versus Conventional Perioperative Management for Colorectal Surgery The 2001 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part two--Therapy. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to reduce unscheduled hospital admissions among adults Evidence-based medicine and the challenge of low back pain: where are we now? Dexamethasone reduces emesis after major gastrointestinal surgery (DREAMS) Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the nursing literature: application of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation Systematic review of the effectiveness of integrated care pathways: what works, for whom, in which circumstances? Updated Guidelines 2008 for the Diagnosis, Surveillance and Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus
Background Protocol s for enhanced recovery provide comprehensive and evidence -based guidelines for best perioperative care . Protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and , as a result of this , also reduce length-of-stay in hospital . There is no comprehensive framework available for pancreaticoduodenectomy . Methods An international working group constructed within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ® ) Society constructed a comprehensive and evidence -based framework for best perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy patients . Data were retrieved from st and ard data bases and personal archives . Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE system and reached through consensus in the group . The quality of evidence was rated “ high ” , “ moderate ” , “ low ” or “ very low ” . Recommendations were grade d as “ strong ” or “ weak ” . Results Comprehensive guidelines are presented . Available evidence is summarised and recommendations given for 27 care items . The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations . Conclusions The present evidence -based guidelines provide the necessary platform upon which to base a unified protocol for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy . A unified protocol allows for comparison between centres and across national borders . It facilitates multi-institutional prospect i ve cohort registries and adequately powered r and omised trials BACKGROUND & AIMS Protocol s for enhanced recovery provide comprehensive and evidence -based guidelines for best perioperative care . Protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and , as a result of this , also reduce length-of-stay in hospital . There is no comprehensive framework available for pancreaticoduodenectomy . METHODS An international working group constructed within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ® ) Society constructed a comprehensive and evidence -based framework for best perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy patients . Data were retrieved from st and ard data bases and personal archives . Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE system and reached through consensus in the group . The quality of evidence was rated " high " , " moderate " , " low " or " very low " . Recommendations were grade d as " strong " or " weak " . RESULTS Comprehensive guidelines are presented . Available evidence is summarised and recommendations given for 27 care items . The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations . CONCLUSIONS The present evidence -based guidelines provide the necessary platform upon which to base a unified protocol for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy . A unified protocol allows for comparison between centres and across national borders . It facilitates multi-institutional prospect i ve cohort registries and adequately powered r and omised trials INTRODUCTION Colorectal surgery has been associated with a complication rate of 15 - 20 % and mean post-operative inpatient stays of 6 - 11 days . The principles of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) are well established and have been developed to optimise peri-operative care and facilitate discharge . The purpose of this systematic review is to present an up date d review of peri-operative care in colorectal surgery from the available evidence and ERAS group recommendations . METHODS Systematic search es of the PubMed and Embase ™ data bases and the Cochrane library were conducted . A h and search of bibliographies of identified studies was conducted to identify any additional articles missed by the initial search strategy . RESULTS A total of 59 relevant studies were identified . These included six r and omised controlled trials and seven clinical controlled trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria . These studies showed reductions in duration of inpatient stays in the ERAS groups compared with more traditional care as well as reductions in morbidity and mortality rates . CONCLUSIONS Review ing the data reveals that ERAS protocol s have a role in reducing post-operative morbidity and result in an accelerated recovery following colorectal surgery . Similarly , both primary and overall hospital stays are reduced significantly . However , the available evidence suggests that ERAS protocol s do not reduce hospital readmissions or mortality . These findings help to confirm that ERAS protocol s should now be implemented as the st and ard approach for peri-operative care in colorectal surgery Background This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in rectal/pelvic surgery , and to provide grade d recommendations for items for an evidence d-based enhanced recovery protocol . Methods Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses , r and omized controlled trials and large prospect i ve cohorts . For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway , available English- language literature was examined , review ed and grade d. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group . Results For most of the protocol items , recommendations are based on good- quality trials or meta-analyses of good- quality trials ( evidence grade : high or moderate ) . Conclusions Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway , the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) Society , European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism ( ESPEN ) and International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition ( IASMEN ) present a comprehensive evidence -based consensus review of perioperative care for rectal surgery Background This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colonic surgery and to provide grade d recommendations for items for an evidence d-based enhanced perioperative protocol . Methods Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses , r and omised controlled trials and large prospect i ve cohorts . For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway , available English- language literature was examined , review ed and grade d. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group . Results For most of the protocol items , recommendations are based on good- quality trials or meta-analyses of good- quality trials ( quality of evidence and recommendations according to the GRADE system ) . Conclusions Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway , the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) Society , International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition ( IASMEN ) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism ( ESPEN ) present a comprehensive evidence -based consensus review of perioperative care for colonic surgery Fast-track surgery , also named enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) , is in my opinion the most important innovation after the advent of laparoscopy ( in the 1990s ) in the field of  colorectal surgery  ( as in other fields of surgery ) . It is defined as a multimodal pathway aim ing to reduce surgical stress by using pain-free procedures with less organ dysfunction , less morbidity and better recovery . ERAS has been popularized by Henrik Kehlet and his team since the early 2000s [ 1 ] and has rapidly gained popularity around the world because of its remarkable benefits and safety . The concept of ERAS is to make use of the improvement of anaesthetic and analgesic techniques , the development of minimally invasive surgery and evidence -based perioperative care . It involves a number of items , beginning from the first medical visit before surgery to discharge . The items are all evidence based being derived from r and omized controlled trials or meta-analyses . The reader can find the references related to the ERAS items in the valuable consensus review published by the European ERAS group [ 2 ] and the paper of Kehlet and Wilmore [ 3 ] . Through this pathway , the patient can benefit from the best available evidence in anaesthesia , analgesia , perioperative fluid management , surgical procedures , nutrition and ambulation . I will focus in this editorial on the role of ERAS in colorectal surgery , but readers should be aware that ERAS has been applied and vali date d in other abdominal procedures , and in urology , gynaecology , vascular sugery , endocrine surgery , orthopaedic surgery , etc . [ 3 ] . The numerous items or components ( Figure 1 ) involve the preoperative , intra-operative and postoperative periods , necessitating close collaboration between surgeons ( no bowel preparation , no routine nasogastric tube , minimally invasive surgery , no routine abdominal drainage and early postoperative diet ) , anaesthesiologists ( fasting duration of two hours for liquids and six hours for solids , carbohydrate loading , no routine preoperative sedation , avoiding long-acting opioids , epidural analgesia , preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting , preventing intra-operative hypothermia , perioperative fluid restriction and postoperative analgesia ) and nurses and physiotherapists ( early nutrition and mobilisation ) . Several r and omized trials and four meta-analyses [ 4–7 ] have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ERAS , not only in reducing total length of hospital stay and morbidity , but also in improving patient satisfaction when compared with conventional care . The metaanalyses included both r and omized and non-r and omized studies , the most recent and the largest [ 6 ] showing a reduction of 2.5 days in total hospital stay and significantly less morbidity ( OR 0.54 [ 0.45–0.69 ] ) in favour of the ERAS group , with no difference in readmission rate . A recent meta- analysis focusing on major colorectal surgery demonstrated that the ERAS programme can reduce morbidity by up to 50 % [ 7 ] . ERAS raises three questions . ( i ) What is the respective role of each ERAS item ? ( ii ) Does the ERAS protocol increase the workload of ward nursing staff ? ( iii ) How should this new paradigm be implemented ? Several anaesthesiologists are reluctant to use epidural analgesia in daily practice , mainly when patients are undergoing laparoscopic surgery . Epidural analgesia ( well known to be associated with less pain ) during laparoscopic surgery has been assessed in meta-analyses and r and omized trials but the conclusions are not concordant [ 8,9 ] . In my own daily practice , epidural analgesia is safe and efficacious in relieving pain and allowing early oral intake and mobilization , but it is obvious that its proper role in the ERAS protocol compared with other analgesic regimens such as non-opioid multimodal analgesia , local anaesthesia and continuous wound perfusion , in the era of laparoscopic surgery needs further evaluation . The roleof laparoscopyhas also been debated [ 10 ] . Two small r and omized trials have shown conflicting results [ 11,12 ] , but a recent large r and omized trial [ 13 ] involving four arms ( laparoscopy with ERAS vs laparoscopy with conventional care , vs open surgery with ERAS vs open surgery with conventional care ) has demonstrated a shorter hospital stay after laparoscopic colonic surgery with ERAS , the other outcomes being similar . The conclusion of the authors was that ‘ the most optimal perioperative treatment for patients requiring segmental colectomy for coloncancer is laparoscopic resection embedded in an ERAS program ’ , suggesting that laparoscopic surgery is an important component of ERAS . The same team has performed a futher multivariate linear regression analysis on the same data and showed that the components significantly associated with a successful ERAS programme were laparoscopic surgery , normal diet at postoperative days one , two and three and enforced mobilization at postoperative days one , two and three ( Vlug M , personal communication ) . There is a feeling that the ERAS programme could increase the workload of nursing staff . The nursing BACKGROUND & AIMS Evidence of the advantages of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol s following pancreaticoduodenectomy ( PD ) is limited . The aim of this study was to examine the efficiency of ERAS protocol s in patients following PD . METHODS Between June 2014 and October 2016 , patients undergoing PD were r and omly assigned to receive ERAS protocol s or st and ard care . The primary endpoint was the postoperative length of stay . Secondary endpoints included postoperative complications , postoperative quality -of-life ( QoR-40J ) , readmission , and medical cost . RESULTS Of 80 eligible patients , 74 were analyzed in intention-to-treat principles : 37 in the control group and 37 in the ERAS group . The mean length of stay in the ERAS group was significantly shorter than that in the control group ( 20.1 ± 5.4 vs 26.9 ± 13.5 days , P < 0.001 ) . The ERAS group had a significantly lower percentage of postoperative complications ( 32.4 % vs 56.8 % , P = 0.034 ) and readmissions ( 0 % vs 8.1 % , P = 0.038 ) . Quality -of-life was also significantly better in the ERAS group ( 184 ± 12.4 vs 177 ± 14.5 , P = 0.022 ) . The total medical cost was lower in the ERAS group , but not significantly ( $ 25,445 ± 5065 vs $ 28,384 ± 9999 , P = 0.085 ) . CONCLUSIONS The optimization of ERAS protocol s in patients undergoing PD  is safe and accelerates perioperative recovery and quality -of-life , thereby reducing the length of stay . Morbidity was significantly decreased in the ERAS group without compromising surgical outcome . REGISTRATION NUMBER UMIN000014068 Background A recent development in gastrointestinal surgery is the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programs . Evidence regarding the benefit of these programs in patients undergoing esophageal surgery is scarce . We investigated the feasibility and possible benefit of a perioperative ERAS program in patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignant disease . Methods The ERAS program was initiated in 2009 . Patients who underwent esophagectomy and were treated according to the ERAS program were included . Items of ERAS included preoperative nutrition , early extubation , early removal of nasogastric tube , and early mobilization . Primary outcome parameters were hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative complications . Outcome parameters in the ERAS cohort were compared to a cohort of patients who underwent surgical resection in the year prior to the implementation of the ERAS protocol . A feasibility analysis was performed among a sample of ERAS patients to determine the number of achieved items per patient . Results Between 2008 and August 2010 , 181 patients in our department underwent esophagectomy .  Of these , 103 patients were included in the ERAS program ( ERAS+ group ) and were compared to 78 patients who had undergone an esophagectomy in 2008 ( ERAS– group ) .  Overall hospital stay was 14 days versus 15 days ( ERAS+ and ERAS– , respectively ; p = 0.013 ) . There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications in either group . The percentage of achieved items varied between 42 and 93 % per item . Conclusions The implementation of an ERAS program in esophageal surgery was feasible and result ed in a small but significant reduction in overall hospital stay , whereas overall morbidity was not affected BACKGROUND Perioperative treatment of patients with colorectal cancer according to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) protocol has proven to reduce complications and duration of stay . However , strict adherence remains a challenge and the benefits may decrease with lower adherence . In this study , we report on 8 years of adherence to the ERAS protocol and its effect on postoperative outcome in patients with colon cancer . METHODS In 2006 , the ERAS protocol was introduced for treatment of colon cancer patients in the Medical Center Alkmaar , a large teaching hospital . Patients scheduled for elective colon cancer resection were included in this study . Adherence to ERAS items was monitored and along with clinical data prospect ively gathered in a data base . In 2011 , several measures to improve adherence were implemented . RESULTS In total , 816 patients were included .  Mean adherence rate was 73 % in 2006 and 2007 , 66 % in 2008 and 2009 , 63 % in 2010 and 2011 , and 82 % in 2012 and 2013 . There was a shorter duration of stay in the years with high adherence ( 5.7 days ) compared with the years with low adherence ( 7.3 days ; P < .001 ) . The ERAS items that were the strongest predictors for a shorter duration of stay were no nasogastric tube , early mobilization , early oral nutrition , early removal of epidural , early removal of catheter , and nonopioid oral analgesia . CONCLUSION It is possible to improve adherence to the ERAS protocol and related outcomes with specific measures . Adherence to the ERAS protocol was related inversely to duration of stay . Only postoperative items of the ERAS protocol were predictive for a shorter duration of stay . Keeping adherence optimal remains an ongoing challenge that requires repeated training and dedicated personnel PURPOSE To observe the clinical efficacy of the application of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) in the perioperative period of esophageal carcinoma patients . METHODS A total of 114 patients who were admitted to Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University for surgical treatment of esophageal carcinoma between June 2012 and June 2016 were enrolled and r and omly divided into the intervention group and the regular group according to the difference of management procedures during the perioperative period . ERAS was carried out in 57 patients in the intervention group , while conventional management procedures were applied in 57 patients in the regular group . Thereafter , compared were the fluctuations in nutritional indicators and immunological indicators , postoperative complications , time to recovery of gastrointestinal function , length of stay ( LOS ) in hospital and cost of patients between the two groups . RESULTS Seven days post-operation in the intervention group , the evaluation indexes of nutrition status , including total protein ( TP ) , albumin ( ALB ) , prealbumin ( PA ) and transferrin ( TF ) , and of immunological functions , including immunoglobulin G ( IgG ) , immunoglobulin A ( IgA ) , immunoglobulin M ( IgM ) and total blood lymphocyte count ( TLC ) , were significantly higher than those in the regular group . As for postoperative complications , the incidence rate of the intervention group was remarkably lower than that of the regular group ; the recovery time of gastrointestinal function in the intervention group was shorter than that in the regular group ; the LOS in the intervention group was also shorter than that in the regular group ; the in-hospital cost in the intervention group was also lower than that in the regular group . All differences above were statistically significant ( p<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION During the perioperative period of esophageal carcinoma patients , ERAS should be fully applied to sustain the good status , and promote the recovery of immunological functions and gastrointestinal functions ; at the same time , ERAS also reduces the incidence rate of postoperative complications , LOS and in-hospital cost , and we maintain that ERAS should be performed in clinical practice Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) pathways aim to accelerate functional return and discharge from hospital . They have proven effective in many forms of surgery , most notably colorectal . However , experience in esophagectomy has been limited . A recent study reported significant reductions in pulmonary complications , mortality , and length of stay following the introduction of an ERAS protocol alone , without the introduction of any clinical changes . We instituted a similar change 16 months ago , introducing a protocol to provide a formal framework , for our existing postoperative care . This retrospective analysis compared outcome following esophagectomy for the 16 months before and 20 months after this change . Data were collected from prospect ively maintained secure web-based multidisciplinary data bases . Complication severity was classified using the Clavien-Dindo scale . Operative mortality was defined as death within 30 days of surgery , or at any point during the same hospital admission . Lower respiratory tract infection was defined as clinical evidence of infection , with or without radiological signs . Respiratory complications included lower respiratory tract infection , pleural effusion ( irrespective of drainage ) , pulmonary collapse , and pneumothorax . Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v21 . One hundred thirty-two patients underwent esophagectomy ( 55 protocol group ; 77 before ) . All were performed open . There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age , gender , operation , use of neoadjuvant therapy , cell type , stage , tumor site , or American Society of Anesthesiologists grade . Median length of stay was 14.0 days ( protocol ) compared with 12.0 before ( interquartile range 9 - 19 and 9.5 - 15.5 , respectively ; P = 0.073 , Mann-Whitney U-test ) . Readmission within 30 days of discharge occurred in five ( 9.26 % ) and six ( 8.19 % ; P = 1.000 , Fisher 's exact test ) . There were four in-hospital deaths ( 3.03 % ) : one ( 1.82 % ) and three ( 3.90 % ) , respectively ( P = 0.641 ) . There were no differences in the severity of complications ( P = non-significant ; Pearson 's chi-squared ) . There were no differences in the type of complications occurring in either group . The protocol was completed successfully by 26 ( 47.3 % ) . No baseline factors were predictive of this . In contrast to previous studies , we did not demonstrate any improvement in outcome by formalizing our existing pathway using a written protocol . Consequently , improvements in short-term outcome from esophagectomy within ERAS would seem to be primarily due to improvements in components of perioperative care . Consequently , we would recommend that centers introducing new ( or review ing existing ) ERAS pathways for esophagectomy focus on optimizing clinical aspects of such st and ardized pathways Background The aim of this trial was to compare the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) program with conventional perioperative management in patients who underwent radical resection for colorectal cancer . Methods A combination of evidence -based and consensus methodology was used to develop the ERAS protocol . Five hundred ninety-seven consecutive patients who underwent elective colorectal resection were r and omized to either the ERAS ( n = 299 ) or the  control group ( n = 298 ) . Outcomes relating to nutrition and metabolism index , stress index , and recovery index were measured and recorded . Results Demographic and operative data were similar between the two groups . Patients in the ERAS group showed improved nutritional status when compared with those of the control group . On postoperative day ( POD ) 1 , the HOMA-IR ( insulin resistance index ) of the ERAS group was lower than that of the control group ( p < 0.001 ) . The cortisol level of the control group was elevated on both POD 1 ( p = 0.007 ) and POD 5 ( p = 0.002 ) compared to the preoperative level . However , the cortisol level of the ERAS group was not increased until POD 5 ( p = 0.001 ) . Reduced levels of TNF-α , IL-1β , IL-6 , and IFN-γ in the ERAS group indicated less postoperative stress responses . In addition , ERAS was associated with accelerated recovery of gastrointestinal function . The postoperative length of stay ( p < 0.001 ) and expense ( p < 0.001 ) for the ERAS group were reduced in comparison to the controls . Twenty-eight cases in the control group and twenty-nine in the ERAS group suffered complications , which was not significantly different . Conclusion The ERAS protocol attenuates the surgical stress response and accelerates postoperative recovery without compromising patient safety OBJECTIVE Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has led to a paradigm shift in various surgical specialties . Its application can result in substantial benefits in perioperative healthcare utilization through preoperative physical and mental patient optimization and modulation of the recovery process . Still , ERAS remains relatively new to spine surgery . The authors report their 5-year experience , focusing on ERAS application to a broad population of patients with degenerative spine conditions undergoing elective surgical procedures , including anterior lumbar interbody fusion ( ALIF ) . METHODS A multimodal ERAS protocol was applied between November 2013 and October 2018 . The authors analyze hospital stay , perioperative outcomes , readmissions , and adverse events obtained from a prospect i ve institutional registry .  Elective tubular microdiscectomy and mini-open decompression as well as minimally invasive ( MI ) anterior or posterior fusion cases were included . Their institutional ERAS protocol contains 22 pre- , intra- , and postoperative elements , including preoperative patient counseling , MI techniques , early mobilization and oral intake , minimal postoperative restrictions , and regular audits . RESULTS A total of 2592 consecutive patients were included , with 199 ( 8 % ) undergoing fusion . The mean hospital stay was 1.1 ± 1.2 days , with 20 ( 0.8 % ) 30-day and 36 ( 1.4 % ) 60-day readmissions . Ninety-four percent of patients were discharged after a maximum 1-night hospital stay . Over the 5-year period , a clear trend toward a higher proportion of patients discharged home after a 1-night stay was observed ( p < 0.001 ) , with a concomitant decrease in adverse events in the overall cohort ( p = 0.025 ) and without increase in readmissions . For fusion procedures , the rate of 1-night hospital stays increased from 26 % to 85 % ( p < 0.001 ) . Similarly , the average length of hospital stay decreased steadily from 2.4 ± 1.2 days to 1.5 ± 0.3 days ( p < 0.001 ) , with a notable concomitant decrease in variance , result ing in an estimated reduction in nursing costs of 46.8 % . CONCLUSIONS Application of an ERAS protocol over 5 years to a diverse population of patients undergoing surgical procedures , including ALIF , for treatment of degenerative spine conditions was safe and effective , without increase in readmissions . The data from this large case series stress the importance of the multidisciplinary , iterative improvement process to overcome the learning curve associated with ERAS implementation , and the importance of a dedicated perioperative care team . Prospect i ve trials are needed to evaluate spinal ERAS on a higher level of evidence IMPORTANCE Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) colorectal programs have shown to be successful at reducing length of stay in many international and academic centers ; however , their efficacy in a community hospital setting remains unclear . OBJECTIVE To determine if favorable results could be reproduced in a community hospital setting using our ERAS program , which was developed using core ERAS guidelines with the goal of accelerated recovery while also addressing other important outcomes affecting patient experience and safety . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS Prospect i ve study of ERAS program , a multidisciplinary effort involving anesthesia , preadmission staff , nursing , and surgery staff at a community hospital . The program was initiated in 2010 and was in full practice by 2011 . We assessed practice patterns and patient outcomes for all elective colon and rectal resection cases performed in 2009 ( prior to ERAS implementation ) , 2011 , and 2012 . MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Laparoscopic approach , narcotic use , length of stay , 30-day readmission , ileus ( defined as reinsertion of nasogastric tube ) , and intra-abdominal infection and association between colorectal cancer ( CRC ) diagnosis and these outcomes . RESULTS From 2009 to 2012 , the use of laparoscopy increased from 57.4 % to 88.8 % ( P < .001 ) . Length of stay decreased significantly ( 6.7 days vs 3.7 days , P < .001 ) , without an increase in 30-day readmission rate ( 17.6 % vs 12.5 % , P = .49 ) . Use of patient-controlled narcotic analgesia and duration of use decreased ( 63.2 % of patients vs 15 % , P < .001 ; 67.8 hours vs 47.1 hours , P = .02 ) . Ileus rate decreased from 13.2 % to 2.5 % ( P = .02 ) . Intra-abdominal infection decreased from 7.4 % to 2.5 % ( P = .24 ) . When comparing laparoscopic cases alone , similar results were observed . Following regression analysis , there were no statistically significant differences between CRC diagnosis and LOS , 30-day readmission rates , ileus , and intra-abdominal infection ( all P 's > .05 ) . Length of stay reductions result ed in an estimated cost savings of $ 3202 per patient ( 2011 ) and $ 4803 per patient ( 2012 ) . CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Implementation of this patient care-directed enhanced recovery program is feasible in a community hospital setting , and it is associated with decreased LOS without increased readmission or morbidity , as well as significant decreases in narcotic use and cost . Improved outcomes are independent of the laparoscopic approach and CRC diagnosis Background Due to potentially superior short-term outcomes compared with open colorectal surgery , laparoscopic surgery is currently being implemented in clinical practice worldwide . In parallel , enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programs are shown to improve postoperative recovery in open colorectal surgery . This study reports outcomes in laparoscopic versus open surgery in conjunction with compliance to the ERAS protocol . Methods The association between surgical approach ( laparoscopic or open surgery ) , compliance to the ERAS protocol , postoperative symptoms , complications , and length of stay after surgery was studied . Between January 2007 to December 2010 , 114 consecutive patients underwent elective high anterior resection with laparoscopic-assisted ( n = 55 ) or open resection ( n = 59 ) . All clinical data ( 114 variables ) were prospect ively recorded . Results The overall preoperative ERAS- protocol compliance was 77 % for both the laparoscopic and open group . Laparoscopic surgery result ed in shorter total length of stay ( median 4 vs. 6 days , p = 0.04 ) , earlier pain control ( median 2 vs. 3 days , p = 0.008 ) , shorter need for intravenous infusions , improved mobilization on the first postoperative day ( POD1 ) , and lower inflammatory response ( CRP ( POD1 ) 54 ± 24 vs. 67 ± 31 mg/l , p = 0.017 ) compared with open resection . The trends in fewer postoperative complications ( 9.1 vs. 16.9 % ; odds ratio ( OR ) 0.55 ; 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) 0.17–1.81 ) and overall postoperative symptoms delaying recovery ( 20 vs. 30.5 % ; OR 0.63 ; 95 % CI 0.22–1.34 ) in laparoscopic surgery were not statistically significant . Conclusions The use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol results in faster recovery compared with open resection Background and Aims : Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has reduced the median hospital stay from 8–10 days with traditional peri-operative routines to four days . The aim of the present study was to introduce the principles of ERAS in our hospital and measure the effect on hospital stay , complications and quality of life after discharge from hospital . Material and Methods : 94 consecutive patients , 40 males , 54 females , median age 66 years , were included in a prospect i ve non-r and omised observational study at Haukel and University Hospital and Haugesund Hospital from October 2000 until February 2003 . After a three-month preparation period , the principles of ERAS were implemented . The results were evaluated with question naires and by follow-ups 8–10 and 30 days after surgery . The results were compared to the results of colorectal surgery before introduction of accelerated recovery . Results : 45 ( 48 % ) and 73 ( 78 % ) patients were discharged within three and five days after surgery with ERAS , compared to zero and seven ( 5 % ) patients with traditional recovery . The complication rate with ERAS was 31 % , and the readmission rate was 15 % . After one week , 57 % had resumed their daily activities at home . After 30 days , 65 % of the patients had resumed their normal and leisure activities . Conclusion : After a proper preparation period , ERAS principles may be implemented in surgical department , and is followed by a reduced median hospital stay and rapid return to normal daily activities for most patients after colorectal surgery Background The present developments in colon surgery are characterized by two innovations : the introduction of the laparoscopic operation technique and fast recovery programs such as the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) recovery program . The Tapas- study was conceived to determine which of the three treatment programs : open conventional surgery , open ' ERAS ' surgery or laparoscopic ' ERAS ' surgery for patients with colon carcinomas is most cost minimizing ? Method / design The Tapas- study is a three-arm multicenter prospect i ve cohort study .All patients with colon carcinoma , eligible for surgical treatment within the study period in four general teaching hospitals and one university hospital will be included . This design produces three cohorts : Conventional open surgery is the control exposure ( cohort 1 ) . Open surgery with ERAS recovery ( cohort 2 ) and laparoscopic surgery with ERAS recovery ( cohort 3 ) are the alternative exposures . Three separate time periods are used in order to prevent attrition bias . Primary outcome parameters are the two main cost factors : direct medical costs ( real cost price calculation ) and the indirect non medical costs ( friction method ) . Secondary outcome parameters are mortality , complications , surgical-oncological resection margins , hospital stay , readmission rates , time back to work/recovery , health status and quality of life . Based on an estimated difference in direct medical costs ( highest cost factor ) of 38 % between open and laparoscopic surgery ( alfa = 0.01 , beta = 0.05 ) , a group size of 3 × 40 = 120 patients is calculated . Discussion The Tapas- study is three-arm multicenter cohort study that will provide a cost evaluation of three treatment programs for patients with colon carcinoma , which may serve as a guideline for choice of treatment and investment strategies in hospitals . Trial registration IS RCT N44649165 Purpose The aim of this multi-institutional study was to prospect ively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol for colonic surgery . Methods The subjects of this study were 320 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists ( ASA ) grade I or II physical status . Patients underwent elective open or laparoscopic colonic resection or high anterior resection between April 2011 and January 2014 at one of six institutions . Three hospitals implemented an ERAS protocol ( n = 159 ) , and three administered conventional care ( n = 161 ) . The primary outcome measure was the surgical complication rate . Results Most operations , irrespective of group , were performed laparoscopically . The incidence of a surgical complication was 17.0 % in the ERAS group vs. 16.1 % in the conventional group ( P = 0.842 ) , in which several non-surgical complications also arose . Oral food intake was implemented earlier for the ERAS group vs. the conventional group , after a median ( range ) of 1 ( 1–31 ) vs. 3 ( 1–9 ) days for the ERAS vs. conventional care groups , respectively ( P < 0.001 ) . The median length of postoperative hospital stay was reduced by 5.5 days for the ERAS group , being 8.5 ( 5–41 ) vs. 14 ( 7–56 ) days for the ERAS vs. conventional care groups , respectively ( P < 0.001 ) . Conclusion This multi-institutional controlled study clearly demonstrated that an ERAS protocol was efficient , without increasing the complication risk Background and Aims : Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients following gastrointestinal surgery . Data on protocol adherence and how this impacts on outcome are limited . This study examines how protocol adherence changes over time and determines how this impacts on outcome across a large-volume gastrointestinal surgical service . Material s and Methods : A prospect i ve review of patients eligible for colorectal , liver and oesophagogastric ERAS over two 3-month periods in 2010 and 2011 was performed . End points included : length of stay ( LOS ) , overall protocol adherence , individual modality adherence , reason for pathway deviation and patient outcomes . Results : 172 patients ( 110 colorectal , 31 liver and 31 oesophagogastric ) were evaluated . For each sub-speciality , the introduction of ERAS led to significant reductions in LOS that were sustained for the duration of the study . Adherence was achieved across 60 % ( colorectal ) , 75 % ( liver ) and 88 % ( oesophagogastric ) of individual pathway modalities . The major causes of pathway deviation were : post-operative nausea and vomiting ( colorectal ) , pain ( liver ) and pulmonary complications ( oesophagogastric ) . Conclusions : Large-scale implementation of ERAS at a high-volume centre is feasible and offers many of the benefits demonstrated in controlled trials , but adherence may diminish over time Objective To analyze the results after the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol s , a r and omized study was performed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy under ERAS or traditional care . Methods Patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy from April 2014 to October 2014 were included and r and omly divided into Control group ( CG ) and ERAS . Primary outcome was quality of life ( QoL ) and length of hospital stay ( LOS ) . Secondary endpoints were percentage readmission , mortality , duration to first flatus , complications , hospital costs , conversions and blood loss . Results Thirteen patients withdrew after r and omization . Eighty-six patients completed the study , 48 ERAS and 38 CG . Postoperative LOS was significantly reduced in ERAS [ 6 ( 4–8 ) versus 10 ( 7–15 ) days , P = 0.04 ] . First flatus occurred earlier in ERAS than CG [ 2(1–4 ) versus 3(2–5 ) days , P = 0.02 ] . The average perioperative charges were 9470 ± 1540 in CG and only 7742 ± 1200 in ERAS ( P = 0.03 ) , with no differences in readmission rate , blood loss , conversions to open surgery , mortality or surgical complications . The median AUC ( area under a curve ) of QoL was considerably improved in ERAS ( P = 0.04 ) . Conclusions This study suggests that ERAS is feasible and safe for laparoscopic hepatectomy Background The present study aims to examine the feasibility and safety of a two-day hospital stay after  laparoscopic colorectal resection ( LCR )  under an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) pathway . Methods Between 2003 and 2010 , 882 consecutive patients undergoing LCR were analyzed . Patients were grouped and analyzed according to whether their hospital stay was 2 days ( group A ) or longer ( group B ) . Demographic , surgical , and postoperative data were compared . To identify independent predictive factors related to a short hospital stay , a multivariate analysis was also performed . Results Group A represented 10.3 % of this series ( 91 patients ) . There were no differences regarding age , gender , BMI , ASA , and previous abdominal surgeries between groups . Group A had a lower incidence of rectal cancer and anterior resections than group B ( 6.6 vs. 17.7 % [ p = 0.006 ] and 14.3 vs. 23.4 % [ p = 0.048 ] ) , respectively , and a lower mean operative time ( 170 min vs. 192 min ; p = 0.002 ) . Group A had a lower overall morbidity rate than group B ( 5.5 vs. 16.9 % ; p = 0.004 ) and a lower incidence of surgery-related complications ( 5.5 vs. 14.9 % ; p = 0.001 ) . The overall conversion rate was 10 % ( only one patient in group A required conversion ) , and the difference in conversion rate between groups was statistically significant ( 1.2 vs. 10.7 % ; p = 0.003 ) . Group A had a lower readmission rate ( 0 vs. 4.9 % ; p = 0.089 ) . Multivariate analysis showed that conversion , postoperative morbidity , and rectal prolapse were independently associated with the length of hospital stay . Conclusions A two-day hospital stay after LCR is safe and feasible under an ERAS pathway , without compromising the readmission or complication rate In December 2003 , the European Council identified best practice as key for ensuring development of high- quality cancer-screening programs . To support national policies on cancer control , the European Union institutions progressed several initiatives on cancer . The European Commission ( EC ) Initiative on Breast Cancer ( ECIBC ) is the most recent of these projects and the most implementation driven . Within this initiative , the European Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis ( in short , European Breast Guidelines ) are being developed ( http://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ ) . Guidelines are approaches to generally improve prevention , diagnosis , treatment , and follow-up of diseases , overcoming inappropriate variations by providing recommendations for best care . The new era of guidelines promises recommendations that are based on the best available evidence summarized in systematic review s while providing the necessary flexibility needed to individualize decisions . The best methods for development of practice guidelines have experienced intense elaboration and attention during the past decades ( 17 ) . The impetus for this attention has been the change from expert- or consensus-based to evidence -based health care recommendations . Although this change in terminology should express the shift from un systematic development of guidelines to systematic and trustworthy recommendations , it is often misunderstood and misconstrued as meaning that experts are now meaningless in the process or as if consensus through discussion is a matter of the past . Neither is correct . Experts from various disciplines and consensus as a result of deliberation remain a mainstay of health care guideline development ( 810 ) . These experts are responsible for prioritization of questions that should be addressed in guidelines ; judgments that result from interpretation of evidence , including the rating of the certainty of the available evidence ; and decisions about how the judgments on the different criteria bear on recommendations . What has changed over time in guideline development are the rules , the structure and explicitness of the process , and the guideline product . Indeed , review s of guideline development methodology and how guidelines can be improved have led to more structured and documented processes that allow a reduction of bias and provide balanced views of appropriately composed guideline panels ( 2 , 5 , 6 ) . Core components for trustworthy guideline development ( 13 , 5 , 7 , 11 ) include that guidelines be developed by a knowledgeable , multidisciplinary panel of experts and representatives from key affected groups ; be based on a systematic review of the existing evidence ; consider important patient subgroups and patient preferences as appropriate ; be based on an explicit and transparent process that minimizes distortions , biases , and conflicts of interest ( 12 ) ; provide a clear explanation of the logical relationships between alternative care options and health outcomes and provide ratings of both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations ( 1316 ) ; and be reconsidered and revised as appropriate when important new evidence warrants modifications . In addition , greater transparency in linking the considered research evidence and the recommendations , as well as the requirement of making structured expert judgments , represents a shift in the guideline development paradigm ( 5 , 11 , 1719 ) . At the same time , developing guidelines for a large number of member states and those that aim to adapt the guidelines poses challenges , such as the feasibility of implementing strategies that may exist in some member countries but not others ( for example , organized population -based screening in Italy but not Greece ) . Addressing these challenges requires considerations that extend beyond strictly clinical efforts in guideline development and mastering the many factors that influence recommendations and their implementation . This article describes the rationale , methods , and processes the ECIBC has adopted to develop the European Breast Guidelines in the context of evolving international st and ards . It also describes an innovative approach to presenting , disseminating , and accelerating implementation of recommendations . Guideline Methodology and Development To adhere to the core requirements for guideline development , the EC has taken several steps . First , it selected , via an open call ( https://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ guidelines -team ) , a panel with broad representation of expertise , knowledge , and background , which includes patients , health care professionals , epidemiologists , guideline method ologists , and others ( Appendix ) . These individuals voluntarily participate in the ECIBC and compose the guidelines development group ( GDG ) . Second , it ensured that all recommendations were supported by systematic review s of the evidence conducted by independent scientists from Cochrane Iberoamricathe systematic review team (SRT)following st and ard Cochrane Collaboration methods ( 20 , 21 ) . Third , because this is a women-centered initiative , we included women advocates in the GDG as full voting guideline group members . We separately considered important subgroups of women during recommendation development ( for example , different age groups ) , and we specifically focused on evidence that supports best ways of communicating this information to women to inform their decisions . Fourth , we applied EC conflict of interest rules ( http://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/rules ) , which are consistent with international recommendations , and used GRADE ( Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ) Evidence to Decision ( EtD ) frameworks to minimize the influence of competing interests on the recommendations ( 12 , 17 , 18 ) . These EtD frameworks help guideline panels use evidence in a structured , transparent way to inform decisions with a series of criteria , such as anticipated harms and benefits of the options considered , the certainty of the evidence for those effects , and the costs and feasibility of the options , to help them reach their decision . Fifth , using the GRADE approach to guideline development and its EtD frameworks , we focused our questions and recommendations on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty or quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that is widely accepted as the reference st and ard ( Figures 1 and 2 ) . Sixth , our evidence review s are up to date when the recommendations are formulated , and we engage in international stakeholder feedback to ensure that recommendations remain timely and relevant to public health and clinical practice . The ECIBC is committed to review ing and updating the recommendations as required when new evidence becomes available . The general process is explained in Figure 3 and is based on the Guidelines International NetworkMcMaster Guideline Development Checklist ( https://hei grade .mcmaster.ca/ guideline -development/using-checklist ) ( 5 ) . Figure 1 . According to GRADE , certainty , quality , strength of evidence , or confidence in the estimate of effect is determined on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence for each outcome ( based on the domains risk of bias , indirectness , imprecision , inconsistency , and publication bias that lower certainty and , usually only for nonr and omized studies , large effects , doseresponse relations and opposing plausible residual confounding that may increase the certainty ) . For recommendations , the overall certainty is determined across outcomes based on the lowest certainty outcome among those critical for decision making for the specific context . The guidelines development group applies the GRADE Evidence -to-Decision frameworks to make recommendations that are made available on the European Commission Web site . ( Reproduced from reference 15 , with permission from Schnemann HJ . ) . GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation . Figure 2 . GRADE EtD frameworks . The GRADE EtD frameworks as available in the GRADE pro software ( www . grade pro.org ) . They help with structuring the entire guideline process into 4 sections and support the conduct of guideline group meetings , presentation , and implementation . They clarify the perspective that is taken by the guideline panel or decision maker and the type of question that is asked in the question section . The section on assessment includes the criteria if the problem is a priority , the balance of health benefits and harms , values and preferences related to the outcomes , cost , re sources and cost-effectiveness , equity , acceptability , and feasibility . Conclusions provide the decision or recommendation with a justification and implementation , as well as research considerations . The presentation function supports the conduct of guideline group meetings and facilitates the output of EtD frameworks to other implementation tools , such as Web sites , h and -held apps , and interactive decision aids . EtD = Evidence to Decision ; GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ; HTA = health technology assessment ; PICO = population , intervention , comparators , and outcomes . Figure 3 . Approach to guideline development used by the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer . The European Commission JRC has oversight of the organization , budgeting , planning , and training . The JRC also manages conflicts of interest , documents all aspects of the work , and manages the membership and group processes . The guideline development group and JRC formulate the questions and work with the systematic review team on identifying and assessing the evidence . The guidelines development group is responsible for developing the recommendations . The JRC is responsible for most other aspects as described in the figure under dissemination , implementation , and updating . JRC = Joint Research Centre ; PICO = population , intervention , comparator , and outcomes . ( Reproduced with adaptation to the JRC process from INTRODUCTION While enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has been proven to improve results in colorectal operations with regard to morbidity and duration of hospital stay , its impact on recovery of bowel motility is poorly documented . The aims of this study were to assess the impact of ERAS on bowel motility recovery , and to assess the consequences of the definition of postoperative ileus on its reported incidence in the literature . MATERIAL AND METHODS This is a single-center prospect i ve observational study of consecutive patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis over a period of 17 months .  Global resumption of intestinal transit ( GROT ) was defined as passage of stool combined with alimentary tolerance of solid food . RESULTS One hundred and thirty-one patients were included . A median of 14 items ( range : 13 - 16 ) was complied out of 19 observable items in the protocol . Median time to passage of flatus ( MTPF ) was 2 days and the GROT was 3 days . The time interval to MTPF as well as to GROT decreased as adherence to the ERAS protocol increased ( respectively P<0.001 , r2=0.11 and P=0.04 , r2=0.06 ) . The incidence of postoperative " ileus " varied from 1.5 % to 61.8 % depending on the interval chosen to define ileus ( cut-off from 1 to 7 days ) . Adherence to≥85 % of the items in the ERAS protocol protected patients from " prolonged ileus " , i.e. , lasting≥4 days ( OR=0.35 ; 95 % CI=0.15 to 0.83 ) . CONCLUSION The implementation of and compliance with an ERAS protocol allowed a reduction in the time to GROT . There is a need for a consensual definition of postoperative ileus INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic surgery is well established in the modern management of colorectal disease . More recently , enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol s have been introduced to further promote accelerated discharge and faster recovery . However , not all patients are suitable for early discharge . The purpose of this study was to evaluate the early outcomes of patients undergoing such a regime to determine which peri-operative factors may predict safe accelerated discharge . METHODS Data were prospect ively collected on consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery .  All patients followed the institution 's ERAS protocol and were discharged once specific criteria were fulfilled . Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients who were discharged before and after 72 h post-surgery . Thereafter , the peri-operative factors that were associated with delayed discharge were determined using a binary logistic model . RESULTS Three hundred patients were included in the analysis . The most common operation was laparoscopic anterior resection ( n = 123 , 41 % ) . Mean length of stay was 4.8 days ( st and ard deviation 5.9 ) , with 185 ( 62 % ) patients discharged within 72 h. Ten ( 3 % ) patients had a post-operative complication . Three independent predictors of delayed discharge were identified ; BMI ( OR 1.06 , 95%CI 1.01 - 1.11 ) , operation length ( OR 0.99 , 95%CI 0.98 - 0.99 ) and complications ( OR 16.26 , 95%CI 4.88 - 54.08 ) . CONCLUSIONS A combined approach of laparoscopic surgery and ERAS leads to reduced length of stay . This enables more than 60 % of patients to be discharged within 72 h. Increased BMI , duration of operation and complications post-operatively independently predict a longer length of stay BACKGROUND The ERAS ( enhanced recovery after surgery ) care has been shown in r and omized clinical trials to improve outcome after colorectal surgery compared to traditional care . The impact of different levels of compliance and specific elements , particularly out with a trial setting , is poorly understood . OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the individual impact of specific patient factors and perioperative enhanced recovery protocol compliance on postoperative outcome after elective primary colorectal cancer resection . METHODS The international , multicenter ERAS registry data , collected between November 2008 and March 2013 , was review ed . Patient demographics , disease characteristics , and perioperative ERAS protocol compliance were assessed . Linear regression was undertaken for primary admission duration and logistic regression for the development of any postoperative complication . FINDINGS A total of 1509 colonic and 843 rectal resections were undertaken in 13 centers from 6 countries .  Median length of stay for colorectal resections was 6 days , with readmissions in 216 ( 9.2 % ) , complications in 948 ( 40 % ) , and reoperation in 167 ( 7.1 % ) of 2352 patients . Laparoscopic surgery was associated with reduced complications [ odds ratio ( OR ) = 0.68 ; P < 0.001 ] and length of stay ( OR = 0.83 , P < 0.001 ) . Increasing ERAS compliance was correlated with fewer complications ( OR = 0.69 , P < 0.001 ) and shorter primary hospital admission ( OR = 0.88 , P < 0.001 ) . Shorter hospital stay was associated with preoperative carbohydrate and fluid loading ( OR = 0.89 , P = 0.001 ) , and totally intravenous anesthesia ( OR = 0.86 , P < 0.001 ) ; longer stay was associated with intraoperative epidural analgesia ( OR = 1.07 , P = 0.019 ) . Reduced postoperative complications were associated with restrictive perioperative intravenous fluids ( OR = 0.35 , P < 0.001 ) . CONCLUSIONS This analysis has demonstrated that in a large , international cohort of patients , increasing compliance with an ERAS program and the use of laparoscopic surgery independently improve outcome BACKGROUND There is increasing interest in implementing comprehensive perioperative protocol s , including preoperative optimization and education , perioperative goal -directed fluid management , and postoperative fast tracking , to enhance recovery after surgery . Data on the outcomes of these protocol s in pancreatic surgery , however , are limited . STUDY DESIGN A retrospective review of a prospect ively maintained pancreas surgery data base at a single institution from August 2012 to April 2015 was undertaken . An enhanced recovery protocol was initiated in October 2014 , and patients were divided into groups according to pre protocol or post protocol implementation . Preoperative , intraoperative , and postoperative data were tabulated . Statistical analysis was performed with Student 's t-test and Fisher 's exact tests , as well as e quality of variances where appropriate , using SAS System software ( SAS Institute ) . RESULTS Three hundred and seventy-eight patients ( 181 men , mean age 54 years , BMI 28 kg/m(2 ) ) underwent elective pancreatic surgery during the study period , 297 patients pre protocol and 81 post protocol . There were no significant differences in preoperative or intraoperative characteristics . Mean postoperative length of stay was significantly lower in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery group ( 7.4 vs 9.2 days ; p < 0.0001 ) . Hospital costs were similarly lower in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery group ( $ 23,307.90 vs $ 27,387.80 ; p < 0.0001 ) . Readmission ( 29 % vs 32 % ) and pancreatic fistula ( 26 % vs 28 % ) rates were similar between groups . Delayed gastric emptying was lower in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery group ( 26 % vs 13 % ; p = 0.03 ) . CONCLUSIONS Implementation of an enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery protocol significantly decreased length of stay and hospital cost without increasing readmission or morbidity . Despite patient complexity and the potential need for individualization of care , enhanced recovery protocol s can be valuable and effective in high-risk patient population s , including pancreatic surgery patients Aim : Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) is a multimodal approach that aims to optimize perioperative treatment . Whether elderly patients receiving colorectal surgery can adhere to and benefit from an ERAS approach is uncertain . The aim of this study was to compare patients in different age groups participating in an ERAS program .  Method : In this sub study of a r and omized controlled trial , we analyzed the interventional ERAS arm of adult patients eligible for laparoscopic or open colorectal resection with regard to the importance of age . Patients were divided into three groups based on age : ≤65 years ( n = 79 ) , 66 - 79 years ( n = 56 ) , and ≥80 years ( n = 19 ) . The primary end point was total postoperative hospital stay ( THS ) . Secondary end points were postoperative hospital stay , postoperative complications , postoperative C-reactive protein levels , readmission rate , mortality , and patient adherence to the different  ERAS elements . All parameters and measuring the adherence to the ERAS protocol were recorded before surgery , on the day of the operation , and daily until discharge . Results : There were no significant differences in length of THS between age groups ( ≤65 years , median 5 [ range 2 - 47 ] days ; 66 - 79 years , median 5.5 [ range 2 - 36 ] days ; ≥80 years , median 7 [ range 3 - 50 ] days ; p = .53 ) . All secondary outcomes were similar between age groups . Patient adherence to the ERAS protocol was as good in the elderly as it was in the younger patients . Conclusion : Elderly patients adhered to and benefited from an ERAS program , similar to their younger counterparts OBJECTIVES To study the impact of different adherence levels to the enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol and the effect of various ERAS elements on outcomes following major surgery . DESIGN Single-center prospect i ve cohort study before and after reinforcement of an ERAS protocol . Comparisons were made both between and across periods using multivariate logistic regression . All clinical data ( 114 variables ) were prospect ively recorded . SETTING Ersta Hospital , Stockholm , Sweden . PATIENTS Nine hundred fifty-three consecutive patients with colorectal cancer : 464 patients treated in 2002 to 2004 and 489 in 2005 to 2007 . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The association between improved adherence to the ERAS protocol and the incidence of postoperative symptoms , complications , and length of stay following major colorectal cancer surgery was analyzed . RESULTS Following an overall increase in preoperative and perioperative adherence to the ERAS protocol from 43.3 % in 2002 to 2004 to 70.6 % in 2005 to 2007 , both postoperative complications ( odds ratio , 0.73 ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.55 - 0.98 ) and symptoms ( odds ratio , 0.53 ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.40 - 0.70 ) declined significantly . Restriction of intravenous fluid and use of a preoperative carbohydrate drink were major independent predictors . Across periods , the proportion of adverse postoperative outcomes ( 30-day morbidity , symptoms , and readmissions ) was significantly reduced with increasing adherence to the ERAS protocol ( > 70 % , > 80 % , and > 90 % ) compared with low ERAS adherence ( < 50 % ) . CONCLUSION Improved adherence to the st and ardized multimodal ERAS protocol is significantly associated with improved clinical outcomes following major colorectal cancer surgery , indicating a dose-response relationship The aim of this r and omized clinical trial was to compare patients treated using a multimodal approach [ enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) ]  , with a special focus on counselling , to patients treated in a st and ard conventional care pathway , who underwent elective colorectal resection Abstract INTRODUCTION : In an era of dwindling hospital re sources and increasing medical costs , safe reduction in postoperative stay has become a major focus to optimize utilization of healthcare re sources . Although several protocol s have been reported to reduce postoperative stay , no Level I evidence exists for their use in routine clinical practice . METHODS : Sixty-four patients undergoing laparotomy and intestinal or rectal resection  were r and omly assigned to a pathway of controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet or to traditional postoperative care .  Time to discharge from hospital , complication and readmission rates , pain level , quality of life , and patient satisfaction scores were determined at the time of discharge and at 10 and 30 days after surgery . Subgroups were defined to evaluate those who derived the optimal benefit from the protocol . RESULTS : Pathway patients spent less total time in the hospital after surgery ( 5.4 vs. 7.1 days ; P = 0.02 ) and less time in the hospital during the primary admission than traditional patients . Patients younger than 70 years old had greater benefits than the overall study group ( 5 vs. 7.1 days ; P = 0.01 ) . Patients treated by surgeons with the most experience with the pathway spent significantly less time in the hospital than did those whose surgeons were less experienced with the pathway ( P = 0.01 ) . There was no difference between pathway and traditional patients for readmission or complication rates , pain score , quality of life after surgery , or overall satisfaction with the hospital stay . CONCLUSIONS : Patients scheduled for a laparotomy and major intestinal or rectal resection  are suitable for management by a pathway of controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet . Pathway patients have a shorter hospital stay , with no adverse effect on patient satisfaction , pain scores , or complication rates . Patients younger than 70 years of age derive the optimal benefit , and increased surgeon experience improves outcome Systematic review s and meta-analyses published in recent years have allowed drafting of evidence -based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopedic and trauma surgery . It is important to recognize the limitations of the recommendations derived from the available body of evidence . Since some of the most relevant r and omized controlled clinical trials were performed more than 20 years ago , it is sometimes difficult to apply the data to today 's clinical practice . In establishing consensus guidelines , it could prove difficult to identify areas for improvement through further research and better compliance . Although recommendations for optimized treatment of orthopedic implant infections are not currently based on first-class evidence , there are very promising new concepts emerging in this field , and we are awaiting more data and decisive conclusions from larger clinical trials BACKGROUND AND AIMS The Enhanced Recovery after Surgery ( ERAS ) program has been proposed as a postoperative recovery-enhancing strategy . We frequently apply the Modified-ERAS program following oesophagectomy . This study aims to eluci date the impact of goal -directed fluid therapy ( GDT ) for the perioperative management of oesophageal cancer on the postoperative recovery of patients undergoing oesophagectomy . METHODS This is an interventional before-after comparative observational study conducted at Kanagawa Cancer Centre , Japan . Patients who underwent elective oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer were recruited . Group H ( retrospectively collected ) received intraoperative and postoperative management consisting of fluid administration without haemodynamic monitoring and the M-ERAS program , while Group S prospect ively received management consisting of GDT and the M-ERAS program . The primary endpoint was the speed of gastrointestinal functional recovery , while secondary endpoints were the level of postoperative mobilisation , incidence of complications , postoperative length of hospital stay ( LOS ) , and nutritional status after discharge . RESULTS The proportion of patients who completely egested Gastrografin by postoperative day 4 , the level of postoperative mobilisation , and achievement ratio for a 100-m walk on the first postoperative attempt were significantly higher in Group S than in Group H ( P = 0.034 , P = 0.0197 , and P < 0.0001 , respectively ) . No significant differences were observed in the postoperative LOS and incidence of complications within 30 days between the groups . The serum albumin levels at 6 months after discharge was higher in Group S than in Group H ( P = 0.0002 ) . CONCLUSIONS The GDT-ERAS program enhanced postoperative gastrointestinal recovery and mobilisation , as well as postoperative nutritional status and protein synthesis . The program did not affect either postoperative LOS or the incidence of complications . TRIAL REGISTRATION UMIN registration number : UMIN000013705 , https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000015999 OBJECTIVE To evaluate  enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS ) protocol in colorectal surgery . METHODS From september 2006 to February 2007 , 74 patients with colorectal cancer were r and omly assigned to ERAS group and control group . The stress index , nutrition and metabolism index , intraoperative index and postoperative index were evaluated . RESULTS Six patients were excluded , 3 in ERAS group ( 2 cases received hepatectomy concomitantly and 1 case received partial ileum resection ) , and 3 in control group ( 1 case received hepatectomy  and 1 case received colorectomy concomitantly , another presented asthma paroxysm ) . So there were 34 cases in ERAS group and 34 cases in control , with no statistical differences in sex , age , BMI index and operation types . Deviation of HOMA-IR index of ERAS was lower than the control ( P>0.05 ) , the same as plasma cortisol at the 1st day after operation ( P<0.05 ) , but plasma glucagons in the operation of ERAS group was higher than that of control ( P<0.05 ) . Plasma glucose 1st day after operation of ERAS group was lower than control ( P<0.05 ) , while plasma triglyceride intraoperation , at 1st day , 2nd day after operation of ERAS was higher than control ( P<0.05 ) . Nitrogen negative balance of ERAS group was higher than control at 2nd day after surgery , but is lower intraoperation and at 6th day after operation ( P<0.05 ) . The time of exhaust gas and stool , time to eat fluidity and semi-fluidity , out-of-bed time and exercise time per-day , residual time and complication rate in ERAS group were better than those of control ( P<0.05 ) . Post-operative expenses of ERAS was lower than that of control ( P<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION ERAS can decrease surgical stress , increase functional recovery and reduce complication rate The European Hernia Society ( EHS ) is proud to present the EHS Guidelines for the Treatment of  Inguinal Hernia in Adult Patients . The Guidelines contain recommendations for the treatment of inguinal hernia from diagnosis till aftercare . They have been developed by a Working Group consisting of expert surgeons with representatives of 14 country members of the EHS . They are evidence -based and , when necessary , a consensus was reached among all members . The Guidelines have been review ed by a Steering Committee . Before finalisation , feedback from different national hernia societies was obtained . The  Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation ( AGREE ) instrument was used by the Cochrane Association to vali date the Guidelines . The Guidelines can be used to adjust local protocol s , for training purpose s and quality control . They will be revised in 2012 in order to keep them up date d. In between revisions , it is the intention of the Working Group to provide every year , during the EHS annual congress , a short up date of new high-level evidence ( r and omised controlled trials [ RCTs ] and meta-analyses ) . Developing guidelines leads to questions that remain to be answered by specific research . Therefore , we provide recommendations for further research that can be performed to raise the level of evidence concerning certain aspects of inguinal hernia treatment . In addition , a short summary , specifically for the general practitioner , is given . In order to increase the practical use of the Guidelines by consultants and residents , more details on the most important surgical techniques , local infiltration anaesthesia and a patient information sheet is provided . The most important challenge now will be the implementation of the Guidelines in daily surgical practice . This remains an important task for the EHS . The establishment of an EHS school for teaching inguinal hernia repair surgical techniques , including tips and tricks from experts to overcome the learning curve ( especially in endoscopic repair ) , will be the next step . Working together on this project was a great learning experience , and it was worthwhile and fun . Cultural differences between members were easily overcome by educating each other , respecting different views and always coming back to the principles of evidence -based medicine . The members of the Working Group would like to thank the EHS board for their support and especially Ethicon for sponsoring the many meetings that were needed to finalise such an ambitious project Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) programs are associated with reduced hospital morbidity and mortality . The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the introduction of ERAS care improved the adverse events in colorectal surgery . In a cohort study , mortality , morbidity , and length of stay were compared between ERAS patients and carefully matched historical controls . Methods Patients were matched for their type of disease , the type of surgery , P-Possum ( Portsmouth-Possum ) , CR-Possum ( Colorectal-Possum ) Physiological and Operative Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity ( POSSUM ) , gender , and American Society of Anesthesiologists ( ASA ) grade . The primary outcome measures of this study were mortality and morbidity . Secondary outcome measures were fluid intake , length of hospital stay , the number of relaparotomies , and the number of readmissions within 30 days . Data on the ERAS patients were collected prospect ively . Results Sixty-one patients treated according to the ERAS program were compared with 122 patients who received conventional postoperative care .  The two groups were comparable with respect to age , ASA grade , P-Possum ( Portsmouth-Possum ) , CR-Possum ( Colorectal-Possum ) score , type of surgery , stoma formation , type of disease , and gender . Morbidity was lower in the ERAS group compared to the control group ( 14.8 % versus 33.6 % respectively ; P = < 0.01 ) . Patients in the ERAS group received significantly less fluid and spent fewer days in the hospital ( median 6 days , range 3–50 vs. median 9 days , range 3–138 ; P = 0.032 ) . There was no difference between the ERAS and the control group for mortality ( 0 % vs. 1.6 % ; P = 0.55 ) and readmission rate ( 3.3 % vs. 1.6 % ; P = 0.60 ) . Conclusion Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program  reduces morbidity and the length of hospital stay for patients undergoing elective colonic or rectal surgery BACKGROUND In 2010 , the Canadian Thoracic Society ( CTS ) published a Consensus Summary for the diagnosis and management of asthma in children six years of age and older , and adults , including an up date d Asthma Management Continuum . The CTS Asthma Clinical Assembly subsequently began a formal clinical practice guideline up date process , focusing , in this first iteration , on topics of controversy and ⁄or gaps in the previous guidelines . METHODS Four clinical questions were identified as a focus for the up date d guideline : the role of noninvasive measurements of airway inflammation for the adjustment of anti-inflammatory therapy ; the initiation of adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids ( ICS ) for uncontrolled asthma ; the role of a single inhaler of an ICS⁄long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination as a reliever , and as a reliever and a controller ; and the escalation of controller medication for acute loss of asthma control as part of a self-management action plan . The expert panel followed an adaptation process to identify and appraise existing guidelines on the specified topics . In addition , literature search es were performed to identify relevant systematic review s and r and omized controlled trials . The panel formally assessed and grade d the evidence , and made 34 recommendations . RESULTS The up date d guideline recommendations outline a role for inclusion of assessment of sputum eosinophils , in addition to st and ard measures of asthma control , to guide adjustment of controller therapy in adults with moderate to severe asthma . Appraisal of the evidence regarding which adjunct controller therapy to add to ICS and at what ICS dose to begin adjunct therapy in children and adults with poor asthma control supported the 2010 CTS Consensus Summary recommendations . New recommendations for the adjustment of controller medication within written action plans are provided . Finally , priority areas for future research were identified . CONCLUSIONS The present clinical practice guideline is the first up date of the CTS Asthma Guidelines following the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee 's new guideline development process . Tools and strategies to support guideline implementation will be developed and the CTS will continue to regularly provide up date s reflecting new evidence Guidelines for clinical practice are intended to suggest preferable approaches to particular medical problems as established by interpretation and collation of scientifically valid research , derived from extensive review of published literature . When data that will withst and objective scrutiny are not available , a recommendation may be made based on a consensus of experts . Guidelines are intended to apply to the clinical situation for all physicians without regard to specialty . Guidelines are intended to be flexible , not necessarily indicating the only acceptable approach , and should be distinguished from st and ards of care that are inflexible and rarely violated . Given the wide range of choices in any health-care problem , the physician should select the course best suited to the individual patient and the clinical situation presented . These guidelines are developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and its Practice Parameters Committee . Expert opinion is solicited from the outset for the document . The quality of evidence upon which a specific recommendation is based is as follows : Grade A : Homogeneous evidence from multiple well- design ed r and omized ( therapeutic ) or cohort ( descriptive ) controlled trials , each involving a number of participants to be of sufficient statistical power . Grade B : Evidence from at least one large well- design ed clinical trial with or without r and omization , from cohort or case – control analytic studies , or well- design ed meta- analysis . Grade C : Evidence based on clinical experience , descriptive studies , or reports of expert committees . The Committee review s guidelines in depth , with participation from experienced clinicians and others in related fields . The final recommendations are based on the data available at the time of the production of the document and may be up date d with pertinent scientific developments at a later time Background Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial . A number of initiatives have aim ed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients . This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution . Methods The pan-European , multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies . The group used a structured , evidence -based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale . Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered , particularly in areas in which r and omised clinical trials have not or can not be performed . Existing recommendations were reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence and observed shifts in clinical practice ; new recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated . This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and up date d in 2010 and 2013 . Results The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation . Best- practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal -directed strategy . The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents  continues to pose a real challenge , despite accumulating experience and awareness . The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and st and ardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond . This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation . Furthermore , local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome . Conclusions A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence -based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes . The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome Background The clinical pathway is a tool that operationalizes best evidence recommendations and clinical practice guidelines in an accessible format for ‘ point of care ’ management by multidisciplinary health teams in hospital setting s. While high- quality , expert-developed clinical pathways have many potential benefits , their impact has been limited by variable implementation strategies and suboptimal research design s. Best strategies for implementing pathways into hospital setting s remain unknown . This study will seek to develop and comprehensively evaluate best strategies for effective local implementation of externally developed expert clinical pathways . Design / methods We will develop a theory-based and knowledge user-informed intervention strategy to implement two pediatric clinical pathways : asthma and gastroenteritis . Using a balanced incomplete block design , we will r and omize 16 community emergency departments to receive the intervention for one clinical pathway and serve as control for the alternate clinical pathway , thus conducting two cluster r and omized controlled trials to evaluate this implementation intervention . A minimization procedure will be used to r and omize sites . Intervention sites will receive a tailored strategy to support full clinical pathway implementation . We will evaluate implementation strategy effectiveness through measurement of relevant process and clinical outcomes . The primary process outcome will be the presence of an appropriately completed clinical pathway on the chart for relevant patients . Primary clinical outcomes for each clinical pathway include the following : Asthma — the proportion of asthmatic patients treated appropriately with corticosteroids in the emergency department and at discharge ; and Gastroenteritis — the proportion of relevant patients appropriately treated with oral rehydration therapy . Data sources include chart audits , administrative data bases , environmental scans , and qualitative interviews . We will also conduct an overall process evaluation to assess the implementation strategy and an economic analysis to evaluate implementation costs and benefits . Discussion This study will contribute to the body of evidence supporting effective strategies for clinical pathway implementation , and ultimately reducing the research to practice gaps by operationalizing best evidence care recommendations through effective use of clinical pathways . Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov : Background Colorectal cancer ( CRC ) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in the world . Surgery is the only curative option . However , postoperative complications occur in up to 50 % of patients and are associated with higher morbidity and mortality rates , lower health related quality of life ( HRQoL ) and increased expenditure in health care . The number and severity of complications are closely related to preoperative functional capacity , nutritional state , psychological state , and smoking behavior . Traditional approaches have targeted the postoperative period for rehabilitation and lifestyle changes . However , recent evidence shows that the preoperative period might be the optimal moment for intervention . This study will determine the impact of multimodal prehabilitation on patients ’ functional capacity and postoperative complications . Methods / design This international multicenter , prospect i ve , r and omized controlled trial will include 714 patients undergoing colorectal surgery for cancer . Patients will be allocated to the intervention group , which will receive 4 weeks of prehabilitation ( group 1 , prehab ) , or the control group , which will receive no prehabilitation ( group 2 , no prehab ) . Both groups will receive perioperative care in accordance with the enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) guidelines . The primary outcomes for measurement will be functional capacity ( as assessed using the six-minute walk test ( 6MWT ) ) and postoperative status determined with the Comprehensive Complication Index ( CCI ) . Secondary outcomes will include HRQoL , length of hospital stay ( LOS ) and a cost-effectiveness analysis . Discussion Multimodal prehabilitation is expected to enhance patients ’ functional capacity and to reduce postoperative complications . It may therefore result in increased survival and improved HRQoL. This is the first international multicenter study investigating multimodal prehabilitation for patients undergoing colorectal surgery for cancer . Trial registration Trial Registry : NTR5947 – date of registration : 1 August 2016 Background Introduced more than 20 years ago , laparoscopic pancreatic surgery ( LAPS ) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons . As a result , there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms . This study , organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery ( EAES ) , aim ed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients . Methods An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery . Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence -based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process . The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi . Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey . Results LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy ( LDP ) , pancreatoduodenectomy ( LPD ) , enucleation , central pancreatectomy , and ultrasound . In general , LAPS was found to be safe , especially in experienced h and s , and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss , postoperative recovery , and quality of life . Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority ( 69.5 % ) of statements . However , the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case – control studies and systematic review s of these studies , clearly affected by selection bias . Furthermore , no r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) have been published to date , although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe . Conclusions LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages , as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation . LDP is feasible and safe , performed in many centers , while LPD is limited to few centers . RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) pathways have been associated with improved perioperative outcomes following several surgical procedures . Less is known , however , regarding their use following hepatic surgery Background Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programs are aim ed at minimizing postoperative stress and accelerating postoperative recovery by implementing multiple perioperative principles . “ Early mobilization ” is one such principle , but the quality of assessment and monitoring is poor , and evidence of improved outcome is lacking . Activity trackers allow precise monitoring and automatic feedback to the patients to enhance their motivation for early mobilization . The aim of the study is to monitor and increase the postoperative mobilization of patients by giving them continuous automatic feedback in the form of a step count using activity-tracking wristb and s. Methods / design Patients undergoing elective open and laparoscopic surgery of the colon , rectum , stomach , pancreas , and liver for any indication will be included . Further inclusion criteria are age between 18 and 75 years , American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status class less than IV , and a signed informed consent form . Patients will be stratified into two subgroups , laparoscopic and open surgery , and will be r and omized 1:1 for automatic feedback of their step count using an activity tracker wristb and . The control group will have no automatic feedback . The sample size ( n = 30 patients in each of the four groups , overall n = 120 ) is calculated on the basis of an assumed difference in step count of 250 steps daily ( intervention group versus control group ) . The primary study endpoint is the average step count during the first 5 postoperative days ; secondary endpoints are the percentage of patients in the two groups who master the predefined mobilization ( step count ) targets , assessment of additional activity data obtained from the devices , assessment of preoperative mobility , length of hospital and intensive care unit stays , number of patients who receive physiotherapy , 30-day mortality , and overall 30-day morbidity . Discussion Early mobilization is a key element of ERAS . However , enhanced early mobilization is difficult to define , to assess objective ly , and to implement in clinical practice . Consequently , there is a discrepancy between ERAS targets and actual practice , especially in patients undergoing major visceral surgery . This study is the first r and omized controlled trial investigating the use and feasibility of activity tracking to monitor and enhance postoperative early mobilization . Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov identifier : NCT02834338 . Registered on 15 June 2016 As part of a larger study on the quality of life of cancer patients under treatment , the positive and negative experiences in social interaction  have been examined as compared to those of a  control group ( non patients , n = 201 ) . Two patient groups were included : 109 patients who had recently undergone surgery and 108 patients receiving chemotherapy .  The respondents returned a mailed question naire . Contrary to the assumptions based on a review from the literature , cancer patients appear to have more positive and fewer negative social experiences than a r and om sample from the ' normal ' population . Even under more severe medical circumstances ( a poor prognosis or heavy chemotherapy , a large number of chemotherapy cycles , poor progress after surgery ) the poorer the patients , medically speaking , the more help and support they perceive . The results of this study do not support the idea of stigmatization . The personality characteristics , neuroticism and self-esteem are especially important for the having of positive and negative experiences in social interaction . Positive social experiences show a relationship with self-esteem and negative social experiences show a relationship with neuroticism Background Major colorectal surgery usually requires a hospital stay of more than 12 days . Inadequate pain management , intestinal dysfunction and immobilisation are the main factors associated with delay in recovery . The present work assesses the short and medium term results achieved by an enhanced recovery program based on previously published protocol s. Methods This prospect i ve study , performed at 12 Spanish hospitals in 2008 and 2009 , involved 300 patients . All patients underwent elective colorectal resection for cancer following an enhanced recovery program .  The main elements of this program were : preoperative advice , no colon preparation , provision of carbohydrate-rich drinks one day prior and on the morning of surgery , goal directed fluid administration , body temperature control during surgery , avoiding drainages and nasogastric tubes , early mobilisation , and the taking of oral fluids in the early postoperative period . Perioperative morbidity and mortality data were collected and the length of hospital stay and protocol compliance recorded . Results The median age of the patients was 68 years . Fifty-two % of the patients were women . The distribution of patients by ASA class was : I 10 % , II 50 % and III 40 % . Sixty-four % of interventions were laparoscopic ; 15 % required conversion to laparotomy . The majority of patients underwent sigmoidectomy or right hemicolectomy .  The overall compliance to protocol was approximately 65 % , but varied widely in its different components . The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 6 days . Some 3 % of patients were readmitted to hospital after discharge ; some 7 % required repeat surgery during their initial hospitalisation or after readmission . The most common complications were surgical ( 24 % ) , followed by septic ( 11 % ) or other medical complications ( 10 % ) . Three patients ( 1 % ) died during follow-up . Some 31 % of patients suffered symptoms that delayed their discharge , the most common being vomiting or nausea ( 12 % ) , dyspnoea ( 7 % ) and fever ( 5 % ) . Conclusion The following of this enhanced recovery program posed no risk to patients in terms of morbidity , mortality and shortened the length of their hospital stay . Overall compliance to protocol was 65 % . The following of this program was of benefit to patients and reduces costs by shortening the length of hospital stay . The implantation of such programmes is therefore highly recommended INTRODUCTION Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) programs have demonstrated significant reduction in hospital stay for patients undergoing colonic surgery ;  however , their impact on long-term outcomes , such as postoperative fatigue ( POF ) , has not been fully established . AIM To assess the impact of an ERAS program on POF and recovery following elective open colonic surgery . METHOD In a prospect i ve study , 26 consecutive patients undergoing open colonic surgery under a conventional care plan were compared with 26 consecutive patients in an ERAS program .  RESULTS Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable at baseline . The median duration of total hospital stay ( 4 versus 7 d , P < 0.001 ) , rates of urinary tract infections ( P = 0.028 ) and ileus ( P = 0.042 ) were significantly smaller in the ERAS group . Postoperatively , POF significantly increased in both groups . However , peak POF score was significantly lower in the ERAS group ( P = 0.001 ) . In the first 30 d after surgery , Fatigue Consequence scores were also significantly smaller in the ERAS group . Overall , the total fatigue experience ( P = 0.035 ) and the total fatigue impact ( P = 0.005 ) were significantly smaller in the ERAS group . CONCLUSION The impact of ERAS programs may extend beyond the commonly reported short-term outcomes , and ERAS may accelerate overall recovery and return to normal function Introduction It is generally believed that resumption of feeding after colorectal resection is indicated only after recovery of bowel function . This study was design ed to verify safety , feasibility , and tolerance of early oral postoperative feeding ( EOF ) outside an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) program . Material s and methods One hundred patient c and i date s to elective colorectal resection were prospect ively enrolled in an EOF program . Feeding was started on postoperative day ( POD ) 1 with oral nutritional supplement ( ONS ) . On POD 2 , patients had normal food plus ONS to reach 1,000–1,200 kcal/day with progressive increase until 1,800–2,000 kcal/day . Results were compared with historical controls ( n = 100 ) in whom oral feeding was allowed only after full bowel function recovery . The ERAS program was not applied in both groups . Results The EOF group had a better recovery of short half-life protein synthesis compared with the control group ( P < 0.001 ) . Stool canalization occurred after a median of 3 days ( range , 1–6 days ) in the EOF group versus 5 days ( range , 2–8 days ) in the control group ( P = 0.001 ) . The feeding protocol was completed in 89 patients within POD 5 . Tolerance to resumption of feeding was similar in the two groups . The overall rate of postoperative complication was 22 % in the EOF group vs. 27 % in the control group ( P = 0.51 ) . The median length of hospitalization was 9 days ( range , 6–25 days ) in the EOF group vs. 12 days ( range , 6–31 days ) in controls ( P = 0.01 ) . Conclusions EOF after colorectal operations is feasible and safe outside an ERAS program Background : Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) program applied to colorectal laparoscopic surgery is well known to reduce hospitalization improving short-terms outcomes . Its goal is to minimize the surgical stress response in order to maintain the physiological homeostasis altered by surgery . However , there is little knowledge about the involved dynamics in the reduction of the surgical stress that these programs allow . The primary aim of this study was to compare the level of immune and nutritional serum investigators across surgery in patients undergoing elective colorectal laparoscopic surgery within an ERAS protocol or according to a st and ard care program . Material s and Methods : One hundred forty patients undergoing major colorectal laparoscopic surgery  were enrolled and r and omized in 2 groups ( 70 per arm ) . Cortisol , C-reactive protein ( CRP ) , white blood cell count , prolactin , interleukin (IL)-6 levels were collected preoperatively , 1 , 3 , and 5 days after surgery . Transferrin , prealbumin , albumin , and triglyceride level were collected preoperatively , 1 and 5 days after surgery . Short-term outcomes were also prospect ively assessed . Results : IL-6 levels were lower in the ERAS group on 1 , 3 , and 5 days postoperatively ( P<0.05 ) . IL-6 levels in the enhanced group , differently from control group , returned to preoperative level 3 days after surgery . CRP level was lower in the enhanced group on day 1 , 3 , and 5 ( P<0.05 ) . There was no difference in cortisol and prolactin levels between groups . Prealbumin serum level was higher on day 5 ( P<0.05 ) compared to st and ard group . Conclusions : ERAS protocol applied to colorectal laparoscopic surgery affects surgical stress response , decreasing IL-6 and CRP levels postoperatively and improving prealbumin postoperative synthesis Objective Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) integrates evidence -based interventions to reduce surgical stress and accelerate rehabilitation . Our study was to compare the short-term quality of life ( QOL ) in patients undergoing open colonic surgery using ERAS program or conventional management .  Methods A prospect i ve study of 57 patients using ERAS program and 60 patients using conventional management was conducted . The clinical characteristics of all patients were recorded . QOL was evaluated longitudinally using the question naires ( EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 ) pre- and postoperatively . Generalized estimating equation was used to do the analysis in order to determine the effective impact of correlative factors on the postoperative QOL , including age , sex , BMI , ASA grade , tumor location , tumor size , pTNM stage , recovery program and length of time after surgery . Results The morbidity in ERAS and control group was 17.5 versus 26.7 % ( p = 0.235 ) . The patients in ERAS group had much faster rehabilitation and less hospital stay . In the primary statistical analysis , the scores of global QOL ( on POD3 , POD6 , POD10 , POD14 , POD21 ) , physical functioning ( on POD3 , POD6 , POD10 , POD14 , POD21 ) , role functioning ( on POD6 , POD10 , POD14 , POD21 ) , emotional functioning ( on POD3 , POD6 , POD10 , POD14 , POD21 ) , cognitive functioning ( on POD3 , POD6 ) and social functioning ( on POD3 , POD6 , POD10 , POD14 , POD21 , POD28 ) were higher in ERAS group than in control group , which suggested that the patients in ERAS group had a better life status . However , the scores of pain ( on POD10 , POD14 , POD21 ) , appetite loss ( on POD3 , POD6 ) , constipation ( on POD3 , POD6 , POD10 ) , diarrhea ( on POD3 , POD10 ) , financial difficulties ( on POD10 , POD14 , POD21 ) , perspective of future health ( on POD6 , POD10 , POD14 ) , gastrointestinal tract problems ( on POD3 , POD6 , POD10 ) and defecation problems ( on POD6 , POD10 , POD14 ) were lower in ERAS group than in control group , which revealed that the patients in ERAS group suffered less symptoms . In the further generalized estimating equation analysis , the result showed that recovery program and length of time after surgery had independently positive impact on the patient ’s postoperative QOL . ConclusionS hort-term QOL in patients undergoing colonic cancer using ERAS program was better than that using conventional management OBJECTIVE The aim was to formulate practice guidelines on the management of  hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients in the non-critical care setting . PARTICIPANTS The Task Force was composed of a chair , selected by the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee of The Endocrine Society , six additional experts , and a method ologist . EVIDENCE This evidence -based guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations , Assessment , Development , and Evaluation ( GRADE ) system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence . CONSENSUS PROCESS One group meeting , several conference calls , and e-mail communications enabled consensus . Endocrine Society members , American Diabetes Association , American Heart Association , American Association of Diabetes Educators , European Society of Endocrinology , and the Society of Hospital Medicine review ed and commented on preliminary drafts of this guideline . CONCLUSIONS Hyperglycemia is a common , serious , and costly health care problem in hospitalized patients . Observational and r and omized controlled studies indicate that improvement in glycemic control results in lower rates of hospital complications in general medicine and surgery patients . Implementing a st and ardized sc insulin order set promoting the use of scheduled basal and nutritional insulin therapy is a key intervention in the inpatient management of diabetes . We provide recommendations for practical , achievable , and safe glycemic targets and describe protocol s , procedures , and system improvements required to facilitate the achievement of glycemic goals in patients with hyperglycemia and diabetes admitted in non-critical care setting Aim Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programmes have been shown to accelerate and enhance functional recovery after colonic surgery . We analysed prospect ively collected data to investigate potentially modifiable factors that may influence the length of stay ( LOS ) in the ERAS setting at a single institution OBJECTIVES Due to inherent dangers and barriers to research in emergency setting s , few data are available to guide clinicians about how best to manage behavioral emergencies . Key constructs such as agitation are poorly defined . This lack of empirical data led us to undertake a survey of expert opinion , results of which were published in the 2001 Expert Consensus Guidelines on the Treatment of Behavioral Emergencies . Several second-generation ( atypical ) antipsychotics ( SGAs ) are now available in new formulations for treating behavioral emergencies ( e.g. , intramuscular [ i.m . ] olanzapine and ziprasidone ; rapidly dissolving tablets of olanzapine and risperidone ) . Critical questions face the field . The SGAs are significantly different from the FGAs and from each other and have not been studied in unselected patients as were the FGAs . Can the SGAs can be thought of as a class , do all antipsychotics have similar anti-agitation effects in different conditions , and , if equally effective , what limits might their safety profiles impose ? Should antipsychotics be used more specifically to treat psychotic conditions , while benzodiazepines ( BNZs ) alone are used nonspecifically ? Few data are available concerning combinations of SGAs and BNZs , and findings concerning the traditional combination of haloperidol plus a BNZ may not be relevant to combinations with SGAs . The culture is also evolving with more emphasis on patient involvement in treatment decisions . An international consensus has been developing that calming rather than sedation is the appropriate endpoint of behavioral emergency interventions . We undertook a new survey of expert opinion to up date recommendations from the earlier survey . METHOD A written survey of 61 questions ( 1,020 options ) was mailed to 50 experts in the field , 48 ( 96 % ) of whom completed it . The survey sought to define level of agitation at which emergency interventions are appropriate , scope of assessment depending on urgency and patients ' ability to cooperate , guiding principles for selecting interventions , and appropriate physical and medication strategies at different levels of diagnostic confidence for a variety of provisional diagnoses and complicating conditions . A modified version of the R AND Corporation 's 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score most options . Consensus was defined as a non-r and om distribution of scores by chi-square " goodness-of-fit " test . We assigned a categorical rank ( first line/preferred , second line/alternate , third line/usually inappropriate ) to each option based on the 95 % confidence interval around the mean . Ratings were used to develop guidelines for preferred strategies in key clinical situations . This study received financial support from multiple sponsors , with the panel kept blind to sponsorship to reduce possible bias . Medication ratings were based on responses of only those respondents with direct experience with each drug . In reporting practice patterns , the panel was asked to respond based on actual data rather than estimates . RESULTS The expert panel reached consensus on 78 % of the options rated on the 9-point scale . The responses suggest that physicians can make provisional diagnoses with some confidence and that pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are selected differentially based on diagnosis and other salient demographic and medical features . BNZs are recommended when no data are available , when there is no specific treatment ( e.g. , personality disorder ) , or when they may have specific benefits ( e.g. , intoxication ) . No single SGA emerges as a nonspecific replacement for haloperidol ; instead , different SGAs are preferred in various circumstances consistent with current evidence . To the degree that haloperidol is recommended , it is almost always in combination with a BNZ ; haloperidol alone is preferred only in the medically compromised . In contrast , the SGAs are more often recommended for use alone , and the panel would avoid combining BNZs with some SGAs . Oral risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ receives strong support in a variety of situations . Oral olanzapine was rated very similarly to risperidone , with slightly higher ratings than risperidone in situations where it has been studied ( e.g. , schizophrenia , mania ) and slightly lower ratings where it has not been studied or safety may be a concern ; there was less support for combining oral olanzapine with a BNZ . For oral treatment of agitation related to schizophrenia or mania , olanzapine alone , risperidone alone or combined with a BNZ , and haloperidol plus a BNZ are first line , with strong support also for combining divalproex with the antipsychotic for presumed mania . Oral ziprasidone and quetiapine generally received similar second-line ratings in most situations . If a parenteral agent is needed , i.m . olanzapine alone received somewhat more support than i.m . ziprasidone alone ; however , there was more support for i.m . ziprasidone alone or combined with a BNZ than for i.m . olanzapine plus a BNZ , probably reflecting safety concerns . For example , for a provisional diagnosis of schizophrenia , first-line parenteral options are i.m . olanzapine or ziprasidone alone or i.m . haloperidol or ziprasidone combined with a BNZ . Neither of the new parenteral formulations received as much support as traditional agents ( i.m . BNZs , i.m . haloperidol ) when no data are available or the diagnosis involves medical comorbidity or intoxication . When initial intervention with risperidone , ziprasidone , or haloperidol is unsuccessful , the panel recommended adding a BZD to the antipsychotic . However , when initial treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine is unsuccessful , increasing the dosage is recommended . Perphenazine was consistently rated second line and droperidol and chlorpromazine received third-line ratings throughout . CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence , these guidelines suggest that the SGAs are now preferred for agitation in the setting of primary psychiatric illnesses but that BNZs are preferred in other situations ERAS program applied to colorectal laparoscopic surgery is well known to reduce hospitalization improving short terms outcomes and minimizing the Surgical Stress Response . However its effectiveness in elderly population is yet to be demonstrated . The primary aim of this study is to compare the level of immune and nutritional serum indexes across surgery in patients aged over 70 years old undergoing elective colorectal laparoscopic surgery within an ERAS protocol or according to a St and ard program . 83 patients undergoing colorectal laparoscopic surgery were enrolled and r and omized in two groups ( ERAS Group 40 , St and ard Group 43 ) within a larger r and omized trial on a general population . Surgical stress parameters were collected preoperatively , 1 , 3 and 5 days after surgery . Nutritional parameters were collected preoperatively , 1 and 5 days after surgery . Short Term Outcomes were also prospect ively assessed . IL-6 levels were lower in the EG on 1 , 3 , and 5 days post-operatively ( p 0.05 ) . IL-6 levels in the Enhanced group returned to pre operative level 3 days after surgery . C-reactive protein level was lower in the Enhanced group on day 1 , 3 , and 5 ( p 0.05 ) . There was no difference in Cortisol and Prolactin levels between groups . Prealbumin serum level was higher on day 5 ( p 0.05 ) compared to st and ard group . Postoperative outcomes in terms of normal bowel function and length of hospital stay were significantly improved in the ERAS group . Colorectal laparoscopic surgery within an ERAS prototcol in elderly patients affects Surgical Stress Response , decreasing IL-6 and CRP levels postoperatively and improving Prealbumin post operative synthesis In recent years , intense pressures to reduce the costs of health care have led many health care organizations to seek strategies that reduce re source utilization while maintaining the quality of care [ 1 - 5 ] . Among the most popular of the methods intended to meet this challenge are critical pathways . Critical pathways are management plans that display goals for patients and provide the corresponding ideal sequence and timing of staff actions to achieve those goals with optimal efficiency [ 6 - 8 ] . Interest in critical pathways has increased tremendously during the past several years as early anecdotal reports of their cost-saving potential have been disseminated , usually outside the peer- review ed medical literature [ 7 , 9 , 10 ] . The rapid push for critical pathway implementation comes from intense competitive pressures and the persistent evidence of unexplained variation in medical practice [ 11 , 12 ] . Many managed care organizations have added their weight to this process by m and ating certain critical pathways or seeking partner hospitals that are willing to develop their own [ 7 ] . However , no controlled study has shown a critical pathway to reduce the duration of hospital stay or to decrease re source use , nor has any study shown critical pathways to improve patient satisfaction or outcomes [ 13 ] . Nevertheless , like other promising medical technologies , critical pathways are being disseminated before controlled trials have been done to evaluate their effectiveness . Despite the lack of data , an increasing number of physicians will be asked to participate in critical pathway development . Even more will find that their hospitalized patients are already on pathways that they may or may not have endorsed . To enhance the effectiveness of critical pathways and minimize the disruption to the patientphysician relationshipphysicians and other caregivers must underst and the origin , potential benefits , and potential pitfalls of this new method . Critical Pathways : A New Form of Clinical Guideline Critical pathways have varying formats and are known by many names , including critical paths , clinical pathways , and care paths . Interpreted formally , a critical pathway is the sequence of events in a process that takes the greatest length of time . Like the techniques of continuous quality improvement , critical pathway techniques were first developed for use in industry as a tool to identify and manage the rate-limiting steps in production processes [ 14 - 17 ] . First developed in the 1950s , the Critical Path Method was frequently linked with a similar approach , the Program Evaluation and Review Technique , to coordinate multiple contractors or persons in a project by identifying the key sequence of events , or critical path , the requirements of which would drive the timeline of the overall project [ 18 , 19 ] . Critical pathway techniques have subsequently been applied to projects as diverse as construction , civil engineering , town planning , marketing , ship building , product design , and equipment installation [ 6 ] . Critical pathways were first developed and applied to health care in the 1980s , when prospect i ve payment systems focused greater interest on potential methods to improve hospital efficiency [ 6 ] . Most of the first critical pathways in hospitals were developed by nurses for nursing care alone [ 20 , 21 ] , but multidisciplinary teams soon began developing pathways to encompass all aspects of care for hospitalized patients [ 22 - 24 ] . In general , efforts to develop critical pathways in health care have not incorporated the formal techniques used by industrial predecessors to identify the true critical pathway in any care process [ 18 , 25 ] . Instead , when critical pathways are used to plan medical care , the specific goals usually include the following : 1 . Selecting a best practice when practice styles vary unnecessarily . 2 . Defining st and ards for the expected duration of hospital stay and for the use of tests and treatments . 3 . Examining the interrelations among the different steps in the care process to find ways to coordinate or decrease the time spent in the rate-limiting steps . 4 . Giving all hospital staff a common game plan from which to view and underst and their various roles in the overall care process . 5 . Providing a framework for collecting data on the care process so that providers can learn how often and why patients do not follow an expected course during their hospitalization . 6 . Decreasing nursing and physician documentation burdens . 7 . Improving patient satisfaction with care by educating patients and their families about the plan of care and involving them more fully in its implementation . The general format of critical pathway guidelines is the Gantt chart , which outlines the suggested patient care process based on a time-task matrix , listing the components of care in one column and cross-aligning these entries with columns pertaining to time [ 8 ] . Figure 1 is an example of such a chart for a critical pathway for patients who have had coronary artery bypass graft surgery . Categories of multidisciplinary staff actions are listed in the first column of the pathway , with specific actions for each day of hospitalization . As indicated in Figure 1 , a patient 's diet is expected to progress successfully from ice chips to clear liquids on the first day after surgery . For all other categories of patient care , critical pathways likewise explicitly mark the transition points of patient progress and lay out a coordinated map of staff activities to achieve those transitions in the most efficient way possible . Figure 1 . The first 2 days of a simplified critical pathway for patients who have had cardiac surgery .  Critical pathways differ from most clinical guidelines , protocol s , and algorithms in several key respects . First , clinical guidelines often address the appropriateness of care by delineating the indications for tests or treatments . Critical pathways , on the other h and , have almost always focused on the quality and efficiency of care after decisions have already been made to admit the patient or perform the procedure . Another way in which critical pathways differ from most clinical guidelines is that they are multidisciplinary in their development and in the scope of their implementation . Critical pathways are also design ed along specific timelines , sometimes even in hour-by-hour detail , for indicated actions , and pathways not only spell out these specific actions but also enumerate expected intermediate patient outcomes that serve as checkpoints for the performance of both the patient and the pathway . Yet another distinguishing feature of critical pathways is that their comprehensive design allows them to be used as a part of the patient record , often replacing other documentation entirely [ 6 , 24 ] . All staff interventions and intermediate clinical outcomes that occur as expected can be simply initialed on the critical pathway document . If staff actions or intermediate patient outcomes do not occur as expected , however , a variance from the pathway is said to have occurred [ 26 ] . Variances , too , can be noted on the document , along with an explanation of their cause or causes , and , if needed , a plan can be described to return the patient to the expected course of treatment and outcomes . Critical Pathway Development Topic Selection Critical pathways are typically developed for the hospital care associated with high-volume , high-cost diagnoses and procedures , particularly those for which inefficient variation in the process of care is thought to exist [ 6 ] . Surgical procedures , such as coronary artery bypass graft surgery and total hip replacement , lend themselves particularly well to critical pathways because the care process differs relatively little from patient to patient . For this same reason , obstetric procedures such as normal vaginal delivery and cesarean section have also been subjects of pathways in many institutions [ 24 ] . For most medical diagnoses , however , patient care has proved more difficult to translate successfully into critical pathways because of the greater heterogeneity among patients and problems [ 6 , 27 ] . Some institutions have reported that pathways fail when used for medical patients who have either multiple problems and therefore multiple relevant pathways or a problem that does not fit neatly within any single st and ardized pathway [ 27 - 29 ] . Despite these concerns , however , pathways have been design ed and implemented at many institutions for medical diagnoses such as myocardial infa rct ion , stroke , and deep venous thrombosis [ 23 ] . Team Composition The group that is organized to develop a critical pathway should be multidisciplinary in order to bring to the table the knowledge and perspectives that are necessary to view the care process in its entirety . Although many institutions have appointed nurses as the leaders of critical pathway teams [ 6 ] , we have found that having a physician-expert lead each team lends credibility to the pathways and builds a foundation of support among all clinicians . Each pathway team should also have a group facilitator from the hospital administration , a housestaff physician , a member of the quality management department who has expertise in critical pathway methods , and a community-based primary care physician , whose perspective on inpatient care is likely to differ from that of hospital-based physicians . The lack of active involvement by physician-experts is cited as a key reason for the failure of pathway programs ; critical pathways that are developed without physician input have ended up sequestered in a part of the medical record where physicians do not often look [ 27 , 30 ] . Simply gathering physicians , nurses , and other staff around the same table , however , may not be enough to generate the level of teamwork and communication necessary for success . It is an important challenge , especially for physicians trained in an individualistic ethic , to learn how to participate in and lead these teams Background The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative nutritional status on the short-term outcomes of an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programme for colorectal cancer surgery . Methods This prospect i ve observational study included 149 patients who underwent elective resection of colorectal cancer with ERAS from January 2011 to January 2014 in a university hospital .  Subjective global assessment ( SGA ) was used to determine preoperative nutritional status . Primary outcomes included the length of postoperative stay , postoperative morbidity , gastrointestinal recovery , and 30-day readmission . Results The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the SGA classification . There were 96 patients ( 64.4 % ) in SGA-A ( well-nourished ) , 48 ( 32.2 % ) in SGA-B ( mild to moderately malnourished ) , and 5 ( 3.4 % ) in SGA-C ( severely malnourished ) . Patients in SGA-A had the median length of postoperative stay of 4 days ( range 2–23 ) , which was significantly shorter compared to SGA-B ( 5 days ; range 2–16 ; p < 0.01 ) and SGA-C ( 7 days ; range 4–17 ; p < 0.01 ) . The overall complication rates of SGA-A , SGA-B , and SGA-C patients were 11 , 31 % ( adjusted OR 3.76 ; 95 % CI 1.36–10.36 ; p < 0.01 ) and 40 % ( adjusted OR 2.15 ; 95 % CI 0.07–63.64 ; p = 0.66 ) . Mean time to resumption of normal diet and time to first defecation were 1.6 ± 1.3 and 2.2 ± 0.9 days in SGA-A , 2.6 ± 1.7 and 3.1 ± 1.6 days in SGA-B ( p < 0.01 compared to SGA-A ) and 3.2 ± 2.4 days and 2.6 ± 1.5 days in SGA-C ( p = 0.07 and p = 0.1 compared to SGA-A , respectively ) . No 30-day mortality occurred in any group . One patient in SGA-A ( 1 % ) , and 3 patients in SGA-B ( 6 % ) had unplanned 30-day re-admission ; p = 0.11 . Conclusions Within an ERAS programme for colorectal cancer surgery , malnourished patients were at risk for increased postoperative morbidity , delayed recovery of gastrointestinal function , and prolonged length of hospital stay BACKGROUND Enhanced Recovery after Surgery ( ERAS ) programs have gained popularity with potential to accelerate recovery and reduce morbidity after colectomy . We were interested in comparing recovery after open right colectomy within an ERAS program compared with laparoscopic right colectomy in a st and ard care perioperative environment . METHODS Between October 2005 and June 2009 , prospect i ve data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing elective open right colectomy within an established ERAS setting ( OpERAS ) . Similarly , between March 2008 and June 2009 , data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with conventional care ( LapCon ) . Exclusion criteria for both groups were : ASA > or= 4 , formation of a stoma , and dementia or mental illness rendering the patient unable to comply with instructions . Perioperative variables were collected . The surgical recovery score ( SRS ) was used as a vali date d means to measure convalescence on d 1 , 3 , 7 , 30 , and 60 postoperatively . RESULTS There were 74 patients in the OpERAS and 39 patients in the LapCon groups . At baseline , there were no significant demographic differences except that more patients had malignancy in OpERAS group .  Mean operating time was longer in the LapCon group . Median day stay was 4 ( 3 - 28 ) in OpERAS and 5 ( 2 - 18 ) in LapCon ( P = 0.032 ) . There was no statistical difference in the incidence of complications or the severity of complications . There were no significant differences in SRS after surgery at any time point . CONCLUSION When perioperative care is optimized , recovery after elective open right hemicolectomy is comparable with laparoscopic resection . Studies looking at the combination of laparoscopy and ERAS are warranted INTRODUCTION In a majority of cases , enhanced recovery after surgery program ( ERP ) leads to a reduced rate of postoperative complications and shortened hospital stays following digestive surgery . The program 's preoperative , perioperative and postoperative measures are implemented by the members of a motivated multidisciplinary team . Having shown its merits in digestive surgery , ERP would be particularly useful in liver surgery due to the elevated rates of morbidity and mortality this type of operation continues to entail . The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of ERP  in liver surgery . METHOD This is a systematic narrative review of the literature on the efficacy of ERP  in liver surgery by laparotomy or laparoscopy . RESULTS Notwithst and ing a number of studies ( n=30 : 5 r and omized trials , 14 cohort studies and 11 meta-analyses ) less sizable than with regard to digestive surgery in general and colorectal surgery in particular , analysis of the literature confirms that in liver surgery , ERP is associated with an overall decrease in complications by 30 to 60 % , but without improvement in the rates of hospital readmission and postoperative mortality . All of the studies report a reduction in average length of stay ( ALOS ) by 2.3 days and in functional recovery , a more objective indicator than ALOS , by 2.5 days . As of now , the economic impact of the ERP programs in liver surgery is neither positive nor negative , the above-mentioned savings being counterbalanced by heightened costs for material and equipment . Laparoscopic surgery is independently associated with better outcomes in terms of complications , functional recovery and ALOS ; that is why it is important to incorporate this surgical approach in ERP as often as possible . Given a lack of robust evidence , Prehabilitation , which is a preoperative optimization process leading to improved functional reserve , has yet to be assigned a place in ERP programs pertaining to liver surgery . Possible roadblocks to application of an ERP program can be overcome through coordination by a team leader , a motivated multidisciplinary team , training courses and dedicated teaching sessions . CONCLUSION ERP is a care improvement process that has a major play to play in organization of liver surgery , and its large-scale application is to be recommended Hepatocellular carcinoma ( HCC ) is a highly prevalent disease in many Asian countries , accounting for 80 % of victims worldwide . Screening programs improve the detection of early HCC and have a positive impact on survival , but the majority of HCC patients in Asia still present with advanced stage disease . The treatment outcomes of HCC are affected by multiple variables , including liver function , performance status of the patient , and tumor stage . Therefore , it is not easy to apply a multidisciplinary therapeutic approach for optimal management . At present , limited numbers of HCC patients are eligible for curative therapies such as surgery or ablation in Asia . Therefore , most patients are eligible for only palliative treatments . For optimal management , the treatment choice is guided by staging systems and treatment guidelines . Numerous staging systems have been proposed and treatment guidelines vary by region . According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer ( BCLC ) guideline based on evidence from r and omized clinical trials , only transarterial chemoembolization ( TACE ) is recommended for intermediate stage HCC and sorafenib for advanced stage HCC . However , treatment guidelines from Asian countries have adopted several other therapeutic modalities such as a surgical approach , hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy , external radiation , and their combinations based on clinical experiences for intermediate and advanced stage HCC . Although TACE is the main therapeutic modality in the intermediate stage , overall therapeutic outcomes depend on the tumor size . In the advanced stage , the prognosis depends on the tumor status , e.g. major vessel invasion or extrahepatic spread . Thus , a new staging system representing prognoses suitable for Asian HCC patients and a corresponding optimal treatment algorithm should be further investigated using evidence -based data , which will finally bring about an Asian consensus for the management of intermediate and advanced stage HCC PURPOSE To provide evidence -based recommendations to practicing oncologists , surgeons , and radiation therapy clinicians to up date the 2005 clinical practice guideline on the use of sentinel node biopsy ( SNB ) for patients with early-stage breast cancer . METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Up date Committee of experts in medical oncology , pathology , radiation oncology , surgical oncology , guideline implementation , and advocacy . A systematic review of the literature was conducted from February 2004 to January 2013 in Medline . Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by Up date Committee . RESULTS This guideline up date reflects changes in practice since the 2005 guideline . Nine r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) met systematic review criteria for clinical questions 1 and 2 ; 13 cohort studies informed clinical question 3 . RECOMMENDATIONS Women without sentinel lymph node ( SLN ) metastases should not receive axillary lymph node dissection ( ALND ) .  Women with one to two metastatic SLNs planning to undergo breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast radiotherapy should not undergo ALND ( in most cases ) . Women with SLN metastases who will undergo mastectomy should be offered ALND . These three recommendation are based on RCTs . Women with operable breast cancer and multicentric tumors , with ductal carcinoma in situ ( DCIS ) who will undergo mastectomy , who previously underwent breast and /or axillary surgery , or who received preoperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy may be offered SNB . Women who have large or locally advanced invasive breast cancer ( tumor size T3/T4 ) , inflammatory breast cancer , or DCIS ( when breast-conserving surgery is planned ) or are pregnant should not undergo SNB . These recommendations are based on cohort studies and /or informal consensus . In some cases , up date d evidence was insufficient to up date previous recommendations Background Few data are available on TAP block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and ERAS program . The aim of this prospect i ve study was to evaluate local wound infiltration plus TAP block compared to local wound infiltration in the management of postoperative pain , nausea and vomiting , ileus and use of opioids in the context of laparoscopic colorectal surgery and ERAS program . Methods From March 2014 to March 2015 , 48 patients were treated by laparoscopic resection and ERAS program for colorectal cancer and diverticular disease at the Division of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery , University of Verona Hospital Trust . Among these , 24 patients received local wound infiltration plus TAP block ( TAP block group ) and 24 patients received local wound infiltration ( control group ) . Results No differences were observed in baseline patient characteristics , clinical variables and surgical procedures between the two groups . Local wound infiltration plus TAP block allowed to achieve pain control despite a reduced use of opioid analgesics ( P = 0.009 ) . The adoption of TAP block result ed beneficial on the prevention of postoperative nausea ( P = 0.002 ) and improvement of essential outcomes of ERAS program as recovery of bowel function ( P = 0.005 ) , urinary catheter removal ( P = 0.003 ) and capability to tolerate oral diet ( P = 0.027 ) . Conclusions TAP block plus local wound infiltration in the setting of laparoscopic colorectal surgery and ERAS program guarantees a reduced use of opioid analgesics and good pain control allowing the improvement of essential items of enhanced recovery pathways Background Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programs can accelerate recovery and shorten the hospital stay after colorectal resections . The RAPID ( remove , ambulate , postoperative analgesia , introduce diet ) protocol is a simplified ERAS program that consists of a simplified , user-friendly single-page pro forma schedule . This study aim ed to evaluate the impact of the RAPID protocol on patients undergoing both laparoscopic and open colorectal resections in two specialized colorectal units . Methods A prospect i ve , two-center study assessed 117 age-matched patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal resection to compare the postoperative course for patients using the RAPID protocol with those treated in a traditional manner . Results Of the 117 patients studied , 70 underwent laparoscopic resection ( 55 with the RAPID protocol ) and 47 underwent open resection ( 25 with the RAPID protocol  ) . Patients undergoing laparoscopic resections with the RAPID protocol had a significantly shorter hospital stay ( p = 0.01 ) and tolerance of a full diet ( p = 0.002 ) . Similarly , patients undergoing open resections with the RAPID protocol also have a significantly shorter hospital stay ( p = 0.04 ) . Conclusion The RAPID protocol is a user-friendly , easy , and effective tool that facilitates earlier tolerance of diet and discharge from the hospital for patients undergoing laparoscopic or open colorectal resections Evidence -based clinical practice guidelines can reduce the delivery of inappropriate care and support the introduction of new knowledge into clinical practice ( 1 - 3 ) . In many cases , guidelines encapsulate the most current knowledge about best practice s. Rigorously developed guidelines can translate complicated research findings into actionable recommendations for clinical care ( 4 ) . Over the past decade , a plethora of guidelines has been created and published by a multitude of organizations at substantial cost . Despite the enormous energies invested in guideline authoring , the quality of individual guidelines varies considerably . In its l and mark report , the Institute of Medicine ( IOM ) defined 8 desirable attributes of clinical practice guidelines : validity , reliability and reproducibility , clinical applicability , clinical flexibility , clarity , documentation , development by a multidisciplinary process , and plans for review ( 5 ) . However , critical information that would attest to validity or would document fulfillment of the other IOM criteria is regularly absent from published guidelines . In an evaluation of 279 guidelines developed by U.S. medical specialty societies , Shaneyfelt and colleagues ( 6 ) found that guidelines published in the peer- review ed medical literature do not adhere to established method ologic st and ards . Likewise , Grilli and colleagues ( 7 ) found that of 431 guidelines produced by specialty societies , 82 % did not apply explicit criteria to grade the scientific evidence that supported their recommendations , 87 % did not report whether a systematic literature search was performed , and 67 % did not describe the type of professionals involved in guideline development . Systematic review s of guidelines for drug therapy ( 8) , management of depression ( 9 ) , and osteoporosis ( 10 ) have confirmed marked variation in quality . Both nonadherence to method ologic st and ards and failure to document development activities contribute to this variation . We convened the Conference on Guideline St and ardization ( COGS ) to define a st and ard for guideline reporting that would promote guideline quality and facilitate implementation . The proposed st and ard provides a checklist of components necessary for evaluation of validity and usability . The checklist is intended to minimize the quality defects that arise from failure to include essential information and to promote development of recommendation statements that are more easily implemented . In contrast to other instruments that have been developed for post hoc evaluation of guideline quality , the COGS checklist is intended to be used prospect ively by developers to improve their product by improving documentation . The COGS panel used a systematic and rigorous process to define content of the proposed st and ard and to achieve consensus . The COGS panel also included a wide variety of perspectives , deliberately bringing together representatives from medical specialty societies , government agencies , and private groups that develop guidelines ; journal editors and the National Guideline Clearinghouse ( NGC ) , which disseminate guidelines ; guideline implementers , including managed care representatives and informaticians ; and academicians . Methods We actively sought people with diverse background s from wide-ranging geographic areas to participate in the meeting . Selection criteria for participants were 1 ) activity in a wide variety of guidelines initiatives , 2 ) recognition as leaders in their field , and 3 ) willingness to collaborate . To maximize interaction , the number of participants in the Conference was limited . We set as a task for the panelists the specification and definition of a set of necessary guideline components that should be considered for reporting in all evidence -based practice guidelines . We defined necessary items as those that establish the validity of the guideline recommendations or facilitate practical application of the recommendations . We noted that many additional items might be considered appropriate components in guidelines , but sought to define a minimal set of essential elements . We assembled a list of c and i date guideline components from the IOM Provisional Instrument for Assessing Clinical Guidelines ( 5 ) , the NGC ( 11 ) , and the Guideline Elements Model ( 12 ) , a hierarchical model of guideline content that was created from a systematic review of published guideline descriptions . These items were supplemented with items highlighted in the literature , for example , structured abstract ( 13 ) and conflict of interest ( 14 ) . We applied a modified Delphi approach to help focus group discussion . This approach has been widely applied for evaluation of expert opinion on appropriateness ( 15 ) and medical necessity ( 16 ) , for policy development ( 17 ) , and for prioritization ( 18 ) . The technique has been described in detail ( 19 ) . In brief , after we secured agreement to participate in the COGS panel , we gave all participants a bibliography of re sources regarding guideline quality and its appraisal , guideline implementation , and the modified Delphi consensus development approach . Panelists were asked to rate their agreement with the statement that [ Item name ] is a necessary component of practice guidelines on a 9-point scale . Rating an item with a 9 indicated strong agreement with the statement that this item was necessary . Rating an item with a 1 indicated strong disagreement with the statement and suggested that the item was absolutely unnecessary in a guideline . A rating of 5 indicated neutrality or indifference . We developed a password-protected Web site that panelists used to complete the first round of ratings online before the meeting . Online rating permitted accurate and efficient data capture and analysis . For each item , the median rating and the disagreement index ( defined as the Interpercentile Range divided by the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry ) were calculated ( 19 ) . The disagreement index , which can be calculated for panels of any size , describes the dispersion of ratings more effectively than the mean absolute deviation from the median . Index values greater than 1 indicate disagreement . We displayed summary statistics for each item on a form that was individualized for each panelist . The COGS meeting was held on 26 and 27 April 2002 in New Haven , Connecticut . In a colloquy facilitated by 2 of the authors , each c and i date item was discussed to ensure that all participants agreed on its definition and potential contribution to the COGS checklist and to highlight empirical evidence of its value . When appropriate , additional items were added to the list . The group determined that in the second round of ratings , it would be valuable to rate each item 's necessity on 2 subscales : necessity to establish validity and necessity for practical application . The participants then rated each item on these 2 dimensions . Analysis We tallied the median score and the disagreement index for each item . We retained items with median scores of 7 or higher and disagreement indexes less than 1.0 on either scale as necessary guideline components on the checklist . To interpret necessity , the 9-point scale is divided into 3 ranges : items scoring 1 to 3 are considered unnecessary , items scoring 4 to 6 are neutral , and items scoring 7 to 9 are considered necessary ( 20 ) . In this study , the threshold of 7 was chosen because it represented the lowest rating at which the participants indicated that an item was necessary for inclusion in guidelines . Pilot Review To field test the proposed checklist , we surveyed organizations that were active in guideline development . We identified all organizations that met the NGC Web site criteria for guideline display on 12 July 2002 . From that list , we selected organizations that had developed 10 or more guidelines displayed on the NGC Web site . We excluded 1 ) organizations that participated in development of the COGS checklist [ because of potential bias ] and 2 ) government agencies and organizations based outside the United States ( for logistic reasons ) . A draft COGS checklist and a brief survey were sent to the people identified as being responsible for guideline development at each eligible organization . Results All 23 panelists su bmi tted first- and second-round ballots . During the discussion , participants suggested consideration of 10 new items in the second round of balloting and refined definitions of several items . Thirty-six discrete items were considered necessary to establish guideline validity ; they received ratings of 7 or greater and had disagreement indexes of less than 1 . Twenty-four items were considered necessary for practical application of the guideline , each with a disagreement index less than 1 . Several items were rated necessary on both dimensions . Overall , 44 discrete items were considered necessary . Closely related items were then consoli date d into 18 topics to create the COGS checklist for reporting clinical guidelines ( Table ) . Appendix Tables 1 and 2 present a complete listing of all items rated and their scores . Table . The COGS Checklist for Reporting Clinical Practice Guidelines Appendix Table 1 . Items Ranked Necessary for Guideline Validity , Median Ratings , Distribution of Ratings by Tertiles , and Disagreement Index Appendix Table 2 . Items Ranked Necessary for Guideline Usability , Median Ratings , Distribution of Ratings by Tertiles , and Disagreement Index Twenty-two organizations met eligibility criteria for evaluation of the draft checklist , and all completed the survey ( 100 % response rate ) . Sixteen organizations ( 73 % ) responded that they believed the checklist would be helpful for creating more comprehensive practice guidelines , and an additional 2 organizations ( 9 % ) responded that it might be helpful . Nineteen respondents ( 86 % ) indicated that documenting the proposed items would fit within their organizations ' guideline development methods . Fifteen ( 68 % ) stated that they would use the proposed checklist in guideline Objective This purpose of this consensus statement was to compare endoscopic vascular graft harvesting ( EVH ) with conventional open vascular harvesting ( OVH ) in adults undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting ( CABG ) surgery and to determine which result ed in improved clinical and re source outcomes . Methods Before the consensus conference , the consensus panel review ed the best available evidence , whereby systematic review s , r and omized trials , and nonr and omized trials were considered in descending order of importance . Evidence -based statements were created , and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing statements . The AHA/ACC system was used to label the level of evidence and class of recommendation . Results The consensus panel agreed upon the following statements : 1 . EVH is recommended to reduce wound related complications when compared with OVH ( Class I , Level A ) . 2 . Based on quality of conduit harvested , either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used ( Class IIa ; Level B ) . 3 . Based on major adverse cardiac events and angiographic patency at 6 months , either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used ( Class IIa ; Level A ) . 4 . EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to improve patient satisfaction and postoperative pain when compared with OVH in CABG surgery ( Class I , Level A ) . 5 . EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to reduce postoperative length of stay and outpatient wound management re sources ( Class I , Level A ) . Conclusions Given these evidence -based statements , the consensus panel stated that EVH should be the st and ard of care for patients who require saphenous vein grafts for coronary revascularization ( Class I , Level B ) . Future research should address long-term safety , cost-effectiveness , and endoarterial harvest Evidence -based medicine uses the best available evidence to make decisions with patients . The highest- quality evidence is well- design ed r and omized trials . The most compelling example of the power of trials comes from pediatric oncology . The improvement in the survival rate of children with cancer from 10 % to 90 % has been attributed almost exclusively to multiple r and omized trials1 . Since January 2003 , every clinical article published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery has been assigned a level-of- evidence rating2 . Levels of evidence provide a concise and simple appraisal of study quality . The essence of levels of evidence is that , in general , controlled studies are better than uncontrolled studies , prospect i ve studies are better than retrospective studies , and r and omized studies are better than nonr and omized studies . Levels of evidence have multiple purpose s. First , levels of evidence provide the readers of The Journal with a rapid appraisal of study quality . Although a complete critical appraisal is required to determine study quality 3 , readers generally find higher levels of evidence more compelling . Second , levels of evidence for multiple studies evaluating a clinical question can be summarized as a “ grade of recommendation . ” Grade s of recommendations , such as A , B , C , or I , provide an overall appraisal of the quality of literature for or against a treatment recommendation 4 . Third , levels of evidence can be used to develop practice guidelines and performance measures . In an era of pay-for-performance , whereby evidence -based interventions receive higher reimbursement5,6 , underst and ing levels of evidence is important for surgeons . In considering levels of evidence , surgeons need to know that the evaluation is reliable and valid . Several studies have shown that the assignment of levels of evidence is reliable7,8 . The first table explaining the level-of- evidence ratings , published in the January 2003 issue of The PURPOSE : This study was design ed to investigate the clinical outcome and recovery before and immediately after implementation of the enhanced recovery after surgery enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in colonic and rectal resection . METHODS : One hundred and sixty-eight consecutive patients in a single center underwent colorectal surgery before ( traditional , n = 69 ) and immediately after implementing enhanced recovery after surgery ( n = 99 ) . Rectal surgery was performed in 77 patients . Postoperative food and fluid intake , mobilization , physiologic function , and clinical outcome were measured prospect ively . RESULTS : Resumption of oral diet was achieved on postoperative day postoperative day 1 in the enhanced recovery after surgery group . In the enhanced recovery after surgery group , mobilization more than 6 hours daily was achieved on postoperative day 2 to 3 and passage of stool occurred on postoperative day 2 vs. postoperative day 5 in the traditional group ( P < 0.0001 ) . Muscle strength and lung function were less reduced in the enhanced recovery after surgery group ( P < 0.05 ) . Median hospital stay was reduced by 2 days ( P < 0.01 ) . Readmission rates increased ( 4 percent vs. 15 percent , P < 0.01 ) but total hospital stay was still lower in the enhanced recovery after surgery group ( P < 0.01 ) . After colonic resection , postoperative complications decreased in enhanced recovery after surgery ( 37 percent vs. 18 percent , P < 0.05 ) , whereas no change was found after rectal resection . CONCLUSION : Immediately after implementing enhanced recovery after surgery , recovery was improved and length of hospital stay was reduced . Notably , postoperative morbidity decreased only in patients undergoing colonic resection © 2 0 1 0 T H E A U T H O R S J O U R N A L C O M P I L A T I O N © 2 0 1 0 B J U I N T E R N A T I O N A L 1 2 0 1 8 Faiz O , Brown T , Colucci G , Kennedy RH . A cohort study of results following  elective colonic resection  within an enhanced recovery programme . Colorectal Dis 2009 ; 11 : 366–72 9 Lassen K , Soop M , Nygren J et al. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery . Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) Group Recommendations . Arch Surg 2009 ; 144 : 961–9 10 Halaszynski TM , Juda R , Silverman DG . Optimizing postoperative outcomes with efficient preoperative assessment and management . Crit Care Med 2004 ; 32 ( Suppl . ) : S76–86 11 Guenaga KF , Matos D , Castro AA , Atallah A , Wille-Jorgensen P. Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery . Cochrane Data base Syst Rev 2005 ; ( 1 ) : CDOO1544 12 Shafii M , Murphy DM , Donovan MG , Hickey DP . Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary in patients undergoing cystectomy and urinary diversion . BJU Int 2002 ; 89 : 879–81 13 Smith AF , Pittaway AJ . Premedication for anxiety in adult day surgery : up date of Cochrane Data base Syst Rev 2000 : CD002192 . Cochrane Data base Syst Rev 2003 ; ( 1 ) : CD002192 14 Gerts WH , Pineo GF , Heit JA et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism : the seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy . Chest 2004 ; 126 : 338S–400S 15 Fearon KC , Luff R. The nutritional management of surgical patients : enhanced recovery after surgery . Proc Nutr Soc 2003 ; 62 : 807–11 16 Noblett SE , Watson DS , Huong H , Davison B , Hainsworth PJ , Horgan AF . Pre-operative oral carbohydrate loading in colorectal surgery : a r and omized controlled trial . Colorectal Dis 2006 ; 8 : 563–9 17 Wong PF , Kumar S , Bohra A et al. R and omized clinical trial of perioperative systemic warming in major elective abdominal surgery . Br J Surg 2007 ; 94 : 421–6 18 Ratnaraj J , Kabon B , Talcoff MR , Sessler DI , Kurz A. Supplemental oxygen and carbon dioxide each increase subcutaneous and intestinal intramural oxygenation . Anesth Analg 2004 ; 99 : 207–11 19 Grief R , Akça O , Horn EP , Kurz A , Sessler DI . Supplemental perioperative oxygen to reduce the incidence of surgical wound infection . Outcomes Research Group . N Engl J Med 2000 ; 342 : 161–7 20 Grief R , Laciny S , Rapf B , Hickle RS , Sessler DI . Supplemental oxygen reduces the incidence of post operative nausea and vomiting . Anesthesiology 1999 ; 91 : 1246–52 21 HTA . Full report : systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in critically ill and high risk surgical patients . Available at : http:// www.hta.ac.uk/project/.asp . Accessed 5 December 2009 22 Cepeda MS , Carr DB , Mir and a N , Diaz A , Silva C , Morales O. Comparison of morphine , ketorolac , and their combination for postoperative pain : results from a large , r and omised , double blind trial . Anaesthesiology 2005 ; 103 : 1225–32 23 Arumainayagam N , McGrath J , Jefferson KP , Gillatt DA . Introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol for radical cystectomy . BJU Int 2008 ; 101 : 698–701 24 Pruthi RS , Chun J , Richman M. Reducing time to oral diet and hospital discharge in patients undergoing radical cystectomy using a perioperative care plan . Urology 2003 ; 62 : 661–6 25 Chang SS , Baumgartner RG , Wells N et al. Causes of increased hospital stay after radical cystectomy in a clinical pathway setting . J Urol 2002 ; 167 : 208– The clinical guideline on the prevention of  venous thromboembolism ( VTE ) applicable to all hospital patients was published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ( NICE ) in January 20101 with considerable media attention . We believe that adherence to this guidance will save lives that might otherwise be lost due to preventable pulmonary embolism ( PE ) . After the guideline launch , NICE and the Chair of Guideline Development Group ( GDG ) received many e-mails from doctors and members of the public including everything from extremely well-argued and robust challenges , through common misconceptions , to highly individualized personal perspectives . We are prompted by some recurring themes , or what might be called ‘ frequently asked questions ’ , to address some of these issues . The clinical guideline recommends that the first step is that all patients should be assessed at or before hospital admission . This involves a ‘ checklist ’ . The checklist approach has been found to save lives when applied to surgical operations2 and yet it is met with resistance and scorn by some doctors.3 Who would be impressed to discover that the airline pilot had skipped the preflight checklist because he found it a bore ? There is safety for the majority in a checklist – otherwise , while concentrating , quite rightly , on the immediate clinical problems of the particular medical admission or surgical operation we might forget important elements of the background safety drills . In the case of hospital-acquired VTE and its prevention , the checklist has been developed in collaboration between GDG and the Chief Medical Officer 's Working Group and will be implemented with the backing of the Department of Health . The checklist is design ed to be inclusive so that opting out of VTE prophlyaxis should be a conscious decision . Any tick against VTE risk prompts reference to the NICE clinical guideline . Some of our e-mails came from doctors who describe a patient in whom slavish adherence to guidelines would seem to them illogical . A guideline is there to guide not dictate ; it can not be made to fit 100 % of situations . Finding a loophole in the guideline does not discredit it in its entirety . The checklist should be implemented in 100 % of admissions but clinical exclusion result ing in , for example , 90 % compliance might well be about right . Health professionals should use good sense and clinical judgement in applying guidance to individual patients – but be prepared to defend a decision not to follow it . A problem with clinical judgement is that a recent memorable disaster tips the balance . Powerful evidence for this effect was found in the not dissimilar clinical question of anticoagulation of patients in atrial fibrillation to reduce the risk of stroke.4,5 If one of their patients had a bleed , doctors were less likely to prescribe anticoagulants in subsequent patients ; a single event in their recent experience weighed more heavily than the total published evidence . But perhaps worse , if an untreated patient had a stroke , no alteration in practice occurred . So , altering practice on the basis of experience is not even-h and ed : errors of commission weigh more heavily than errors of omission . The background to the VTE guidance is the reported common failure to prevent death due to PE.6 VTE prophylaxis with anticoagulants is not 100 % effective and is not 100 % safe . That is why all risks are carefully considered by the GDG and their consequences weighed in terms of QALYs lost and gained . The guideline attempts to find the nadir of risk for all our patients rather than the individual comfort zone of doctors . We have been asked specifically why we did not include children with inflammatory bowel disease , patients with cancer on the waiting list , and why a relative 's life was not saved after admission to hospital with a PE . Our answer to all of these questions , and many others like them is that they are outside our ‘ scope ’ . The frame or boundaries within which we offer guidance are determined at the beginning of the process and governs the search for evidence which may include many thous and s of papers , and after exclusion of many in the case of VTE , over 400 r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) remained for analysis . Each of these was critically appraised and meta-analysed and health economic models constructed for the particular setting . So the apparently simple matters of defining a hospital admission and how to categorize a day-case have to be agreed by the GDG . Others might have made other choices but the decisions were not reached without much deliberation . There are other working decisions that had to be made at the outset . If you come into hospital for the common elective operations such as cholecystectomy or hip replacement , a PE is the most likely thing to kill you . Are we entitled to use risk reductions from RCTs where the outcome was asymptomatic DVT to inform strategies to reduce deaths due to PE ? If not , we severely curtail the evidence base . Fatal PE occurs at a statistically low rate and trials powered with PE as an endpoint would require many tens of thous and s of patients . A form of common cause hypothesis7 is generally agreed for VTE and has been the premise of teaching and practice for years ( Figure1 ) . Thus , asymptomatic DVT , PE , and death due to PE event rates have a reasonably stable ratio one to another . Does this always apply ? Does it apply to knee surgery for instance ? It is arguable that local surgical causes may increase the rate for detectable DVT in knee surgery which do not share a common cause with fatal PE and then the ratio breaks down . The question can only be resolved by gaining and interpreting the evidence . We may need more . Figure 1 There is generally accepted to be a continuum between  asymptomatic DVT and fatal PE  , with a common underlying pathological cause . We have used Heinrich 's triangle to illustrate this . If the commoner events at the triangle 's base are reduced then there ... Not all setting s have been studied . The largest part of the evidence is in surgical patients and most of that is in general surgery and orthopaedics . An ENT surgeon correctly points out that there is no direct evidence that applies to his practice . But there are biological triggers related to surgery and the degree of reduced mobility entailed for its performance and recovery which have a degree of commonality . Either the GDG generalizes the available evidence on VTE risk and its modification , or offers no guidance at all for a very large number of patients having operations for which evidence was not specifically acquired . A doctor can still make a clinical judgement to deviate from guidance for an individual patient , but it would be wise to document this decision , with the reason . Extrapolation from one setting to another is itself a judgement . In one instance , the GDG had to modify guidance at the 11th hour when faced with new evidence in the use of graduated compression stockings . The existing evidence was that stockings reduced risk of VTE by about 50 % based on studies in surgical patients . Furthermore , mechanical methods are without risk of bleeding and so their use seemed a reasonable first resort in patients for whom there is clinical concern about even a small bleeding risk , such those with stroke . Then the CLOTS study reported that in patients admitted with stroke , there was no reduction in VTE risk with thigh-length stockings versus no stockings and a small but definite burden of harm related to skin pressure.8 In the face of this direct evidence against them , we could not recommend stockings for patients with stroke . But what did this evidence do for other extrapolations ? Should the new CLOTS evidence be applied in non-stroke medical patients or should we use the evidence gained in surgical patients ? This was not straightforward and was discussed at length by the GDG and a consensus reached . We wonder what others would have done ? There are other gaps in direct evidence . More recently introduced drugs have never been examined in a placebo-controlled trial . In RCTs they have been compared with the best existing drugs . To overcome this limitation , an ingenious and mathematically sophisticated method of incorporating all RCT evidence and without breaking r and omization has been developed , called network meta- analysis ( Figure 2).9 Readers of guidance should be mindful of the amount of work and level of sophistication that goes into NICE guideline development , particularly if the guidance is at odds with their previous practice . The opinions of individual doctors on a case-by-case basis are not a satisfactory way of preventing VTE . It is not possible to compute , on the basis of experience , the relative numerical risks of VTE versus bleeding ; both events occur too infrequently and there are too many other variables . Furthermore , decisions made on the basis of experience respond to recent events and discount remote events . It is a clinical question for which the NICE method of careful evaluation of all available evidence is at its most useful and we believe has clear advantages over known alternatives . Figure 2 General surgery : outcome DVT . Network meta- analysis constructed so that indirect comparisons can be made . For example fondaparinux was only compared with the then ‘ best ’ existing agent , low molecular weight heparin . VKA : vitamin K antagonists ; In 2016 , the American College of Cardiology published the first expert consensus decision pathway ( ECDP ) on the role of non-statin therapies for low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ( ASCVD ) risk . Since the publication of that document , additional evidence and perspectives have emerged from r and omized clinical trials and other sources , particularly considering the longer-term efficacy and safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 ( PCSK9 ) inhibitors in secondary prevention of ASCVD . Most notably , the FOURIER ( Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk ) trial and SPIRE-1 and -2 ( Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events ) , assessing evolocumab and bococizumab , respectively , have published final results of cardiovascular outcomes trials in patients with clinical ASCVD and in a smaller number of high-risk primary prevention patients . In addition , further evidence on the types of patients most likely to benefit from the use of ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome has been published . Based on results from these important analyses , the ECDP writing committee judged that it would be desirable to provide a focused up date to help guide clinicians more clearly on decision making regarding the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities . In the following summary table , changes from the 2016 ECDP to the 2017 ECDP Focused Up date are highlighted , and a brief rationale is provided . The content of the full document has been changed accordingly , with more extensive and detailed guidance regarding decision making provided both in the text and in the up date d algorithms . Revised recommendations are provided for patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities  on statin therapy for secondary prevention . The ECDP writing committee judged that these new data did not warrant changes to the decision pathways and algorithms regarding the use of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in primary prevention patients with LDL-C < 190 mg/dL with or without diabetes mellitus or patients without ASCVD and LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL not due to secondary causes . Based on feedback and further deliberation , the ECDP writing committee down- grade d recommendations regarding bile acid sequestrant use , recommending bile acid sequestrants only as optional secondary agents for consideration in patients intolerant to ezetimibe . For clarification , the writing committee has also included new information on diagnostic categories of heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia , based on clinical criteria with and without genetic testing . Other changes to the original document were kept to a minimum to provide consistent guidance to clinicians , unless there was a compelling reason or new evidence , in which case justification is provided BACKGROUND This study was undertaken to determine the impact of an intrathecal mixture of bupivacaine and morphine , when compared with systemic morphine , on the quality of postoperative analgesia and other outcomes in the context of the enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programme for laparoscopic colonic resection . METHODS Fifty patients undergoing general anaesthesia were r and omly allocated  to receive either a spinal mixture of bupivacaine and morphine followed by oral oxycodone ( spinal group ) or patient-controlled analgesia ( PCA group ) . The primary outcome was consumption of opioids during the first three postoperative days . Secondary outcomes were pain scores , return of bowel function and dietary intake , readiness to hospital discharge , and length of hospital stay . RESULTS Postoperative opioid consumption in the spinal group was significantly less over the first three postoperative days ( P<0.001 ) . The quality of analgesia at rest in the first 24 h was better in the spinal group ( P<0.005 ) . Excessive sedation and respiratory depression were reported in two elderly patients with spinal analgesia . There were no differences between the two groups in other outcomes ( return of bowel function and dietary intake , readiness to hospital discharge , and length of hospital stay ) . CONCLUSIONS When ERAS programme is used for laparoscopic colonic resection , an intrathecal mixture of bupivacaine and morphine was associated with less postoperative opioid consumption , but has no other advantages over systemic opioids BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare the topical to IV tranexamic acid ( TXA ) administration of the same dose , given at the same time in patients who underwent TKR using an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) regime . METHODS Ninety patients were r and omized in control group , and IV and topical application groups received 1 g TXA . RESULTS Blood loss and transfusion requirements in control group were statistically higher compared to both TXA groups ( p < 0.05 ) . Length of stay was the same in all groups . CONCLUSIONS TXA reduced significantly the blood loss and the need for transfusion in ERAS primary unilateral TKR In the recent Helsingborg declaration , acute organized stroke unit care was described as the backbone of the chain of care for all European stroke victims . Access to stroke units is , however , still limited . To improve the availability and the quality of affordable stroke care , the European Stroke Organisation ( ESO ) has appointed an ESO Stroke Unit Certification Committee to define the requirements and criteria for official certification as ESO Stroke Units and ESO Stroke Centres based on scientific evidence from r and omized controlled trials , clinical practice guidelines , and expert consensus . Important features of modern stroke care include the presence of a dedicated stroke unit ward , a multiprofessional team approach , a comprehensive stroke unit organization , including emergency room organization , adherence to diagnostic and therapeutic time-windows , early swallowing diagnostics and therapy , intravenous thrombolytic therapy , periods of automated monitoring , access to decrompressive craniectomy and intraarterial thrombolysis , early mobilization and rehabilitation , supported discharge and basic aftercare with treatment of risk factors and poststroke prevention . The Committee defined the target population , the necessary infrastructure , technical equipment , diagnostic pathways , therapeutic interventions , nursing care , and multiprofessional rehabilitation . The definitions also cover the hospital environment characteristics and the stroke unit ’s interactions with other departments . Quality indicators for benchmarking are presented . Although the ESO Stroke Unit ’s requirements are largely evidence -based , expert consensus is also included where evidence was unavailable . These recommendations of the ESO task force should stimulate hospitals in Europe to apply for ESO certification . Fulfilling of the criteria will be checked by on-site visits Background Many patients experience postoperative nausea and vomiting ( PONV ) . Preoperative treatment with carbohydrate solutions seems to improve the course after different types of surgery . This study was undertaken to investigate the potential value of different models for preoperative hydration/nutrition , in addition to our ERAS ( enhanced recovery after surgery ) protocol . Methods Ninety non-diabetic women planned for elective laparoscopic gastric bypass and aged 18–65 years were included . All were on preoperative low-calorie diet ( LCD ) . They were r and omized into three arms , either a carbohydrate-rich drink , a protein-enriched drink , or tap water and instructed to drink 800 and 200 mL 16 and 2 h , respectively , prior to operation . Risk factors for PONV were recorded preoperatively . All patients were operated before lunch and received 1500–2000 mL of Ringer-Acetate solution during the 24–30-h postoperative hospital time . Four variables ( nausea , pain , tiredness , and headache ) were registered on 100-mm visual analog scales six times over 22 h. The need for additional medication was registered . Results Out of 90 patients , 73 complete data sets were obtained . Nausea peaked at 7 p.m. but with no statistically significant differences between groups for any of the variables . Pain peaked the first 2 h postoperatively , remained longer , and had not returned to baseline values at 6 a.m. the morning after surgery but with no difference between groups . Conclusions Inside our ERAS protocol , additional preoperative carbohydrate- or protein-enriched fluid treatment did not further reduce immediate patient discomfort in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery Purpose To up date the Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer : American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline published on May 31 , 2016 . The October 2016 up date focuses solely on new evidence that pertains to clinical question 4 of the guideline : What is the appropriate adjuvant regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer who have undergone an R0 or R1 resection of their primary tumor ? Methods The recently published results of a r and omized phase III study prompted an up date of this guideline . The high quality of the reported evidence and the potential for its clinical impact prompted the Expert Panel to revise one of the guideline recommendations . Results The ESPAC-4 study , a multicenter , international , open-label r and omized controlled phase III trial of adjuvant combination chemotherapy compared gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in 730 evaluable patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma .  Median overall survival was improved in the doublet arm to 28.0 months ( 95 % CI , 23.5 to 31.5 months ) versus 25.5 months ( 95 % CI , 22.7 to 27.9 months ) for gemcitabine alone ( hazard ratio , 0.82 ; 95 % CI , 0.68 to 0.98 ; P = .032 ) . Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both arms , although higher rates of h and -foot syndrome and diarrhea occurred in patients r and omly assigned to the doublet arm . Recommendations All patients with resected pancreatic cancer who did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the absence of medical or surgical contraindications . The doublet regimen of gemcitabine and capecitabine is preferred in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance ; alternatively , monotherapy with gemcitabine or fluorouracil plus folinic acid can be offered . Adjuvant treatment should be initiated within 8 weeks of surgical resection , assuming complete recovery . The remaining recommendations from the original 2016 ASCO guideline are unchanged Since its introduction in the 1990s , the concept of multimodal perioperative care ( fast-track surgery , enhanced recovery programmes ) has gained widespread acceptance and is now considered as a st and ard of care . Most studies that support this approach relate to colorectal surgery , but similar data have been published across surgical specialties with major economic benefits 1–4 . The implementation process has been described in detail and is essentially based on the simple question : ‘ Why is the postoperative patient in hospital today?’1,5 . The relevant question may therefore be asked – what next ? Postoperative length of stay is often seen as the key outcome for fast-track surgery and , although this may not always be appropriate , whatever is used as a primary outcome measure must be justified adequately . It should also be emphasized that significant progress in fast-track care dem and s inclusion and implementation of all of its basic components . Many studies have not implemented the most important aspects of the care programmes that were originally described , including patient information , effective thoracic epidural analgesia with sufficient local anaesthetic that facilitates early mobilization , reduced ileus and rapid re introduction of oral feeding , or the use of non-opioid analgesia , where appropriate , in open or minimally invasive surgery . An important issue that needs to be addressed in future is detailed analysis of ‘ medical ’ versus ‘ surgical ’ morbidity6 . To improve further our underst and ing of perioperative risk , future studies must analyse how one specific complication might lead to another : for instance , whether a pneumonia or myocardial infa rct ion led to an anastomotic dehiscence ; or a wound dehiscence with reoperation led to a subsequent pneumonia , myocardial infa rct ion or thromboembolic complication6 . Initial ‘ medical ’ morbidity may depend on perioperative care principles and pre-existing comorbidity , in contrast to an initial ‘ surgical ’ complication , which may depend on surgical technique , and therefore require a different approach from fast-track methodology . How might the fast-track approach evolve further , as surgeons perform an ever-increasing number of major procedures in older patients with comorbidities , with greater risks of postoperative complications , prolonged hospital stay and death6 ? Preoperative evaluation of operative risk may not be helpful unless evidence -based perioperative interventions are available and instituted . Thus , the specific role of preoperative morbidity , such as smoking , diabetes and cardiopulmonary disease , in determining the risk of postoperative morbidity needs to be reassessed in studies with a fully implemented fast-track procedure-specific programme6 . We also need to have a second look at the relative roles of the different components of the fast-track programme ( for example type of analgesia and fluid management1,5 ) and analyse where progress can be made in order to reduce perioperative risk and morbidity , instead of focusing on length of stay as the primary outcome . The surgical stress response is proportional to the degree of insult and the main factor that contributes to postoperative organ dysfunction1,2 . Every effort should therefore be made to reduce those responses that are undesirable . Regional anaesthetic techniques have a powerful effect on the catabolic response , reducing cardiac dem and s , pain , pulmonary dysfunction and ileus .  Regional anaesthesia should be used whenever possible on a procedure-specific basis7 . Inflammatory responses contribute to pain , fatigue and organ dysfunction . They can be modified pharmacologically by preoperative glucocorticoids8 . Significant reductions in pain , nausea and vomiting , and early fatigue have been demonstrated , facilitating early recovery , so far without demonstrable side-effects . More procedure-specific and dosefinding studies are required . A single preoperative glucocorticoid dose in a larger amount than used for conventional nausea and vomiting prophylaxis might , for instance , be an important contributory factor to improving fast-track programmes in high-risk patients . Minimally invasive surgery also reduces the inflammatory response , although the contribution that this plays in the context of fast-track programmes in colonic surgery is difficult to interpret , as the care programmes used in the ‘ open ’ groups have often not been fully implemented6,9,10 . Therefore , future efforts to assess early postoperative outcome effects of minimally invasive surgery should include r and omized studies with fully implemented fasttrack programmes11 . Newer developments in minimally invasive Background : Enhanced recovery after surgery was compared with traditional recovery after surgery for postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction . Methods : Length of stay , emergency room visits , and complications within 30 days of surgery were compared among three groups : traditional recovery after surgery , transition ( some elements of enhanced recovery protocol , not transitioned to outpatient care ) , and enhanced recovery after surgery ( day surgery , provided with st and ardized perioperative education and multimodal analgesia ) . Prospect i ve data collection allowed quality -of-recovery assessment using a vali date d question naire for enhanced recovery/transition groups . Results were statistically analyzed ( analysis of variance/chi-square ) . Results : The traditional recovery , transition , and enhanced recovery cohorts comprised 29 , 11 , and 29 patients , respectively . No significant differences were present regarding age , smoking status , preoperative radiation , single stage direct-to-implant versus tissue exp and er , bilateral versus unilateral surgery , or immediate versus delayed reconstruction among groups . Average length of stay was 1.6 nights in both the traditional recovery and transition groups , compared with 0 nights in the enhanced recovery group ( p < 0.001 ) . Enhanced recovery patients had less severe pain ( p = 0.02 ) and nausea ( p = 0.01 ) , and better enjoyed their food ( p = 0.0002 ) and felt more rested ( p = 0.02 ) than their transition counterparts . There were no differences in the number of emergency room visits among the three groups ( p = 0.88 ) . There was no difference in the rate of hematoma ( p = 0.36 ) , infection requiring intravenous antibiotics ( p = 0.36 ) , or infection requiring explantation ( p = 0.36 ) among the three groups . Conclusion : An enhanced recovery protocol for alloplastic breast reconstruction treated patients safely , with improved patient satisfaction and same-day discharge and with no increase in complications . CLINICAL QUESTION /LEVEL OF EVIDENCE : Therapeutic , III # # # What you need to know What is the role of arthroscopic surgery in degenerative knee disease ? An expert panel produced these recommendations based on a linked systematic review triggered by a r and omised trial published in The BMJ in June 2016 , which found that , among patients with a degenerative medial meniscus tear , knee arthroscopy was no better than exercise therapy . The panel make a strong recommendation against arthroscopy for degenerative knee disease . Box 1 shows all of the articles and evidence linked in this Rapid Recommendation package . The infographic provides an overview of the absolute benefits and harms of arthroscopy in st and ard GRADE format . Table 1 below shows any evidence that has emerged since the publication of this article . Box 1 # # # Linked articles in this BMJ Rapid Recommendations # # # # What you need to know What is the role of arthroscopic surgery in degenerative knee disease ? An expert panel produced these recommendations based on a linked systematic review triggered by a r and omised trial published in The BMJ in June 2016 , which found that , among patients with a degenerative medial meniscus tear , knee arthroscopy was no better than exercise therapy . The panel make a strong recommendation against arthroscopy for degenerative knee disease . Box 1 shows all of the articles and evidence linked in this Rapid Recommendation package . The infographic provides an overview of the absolute benefits and harms of arthroscopy in st and ard GRADE format . Table 2 below shows any evidence that has emerged since the publication of this article . # # # # Box 1 : Linked articles in this BMJ Rapid Recommendations STUDY OBJECTIVE To study the application of a fast-track care protocol in colorectal surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis . Bowel endometriosis is an infrequent but not rare condition that often needs intestinal surgery and imposes a high economic burden on society . DESIGN Prospect i ve r and omized trial ( Canadian Task Force classification I ) . SETTING Tertiary referral center . PATIENTS Two hundred twenty-seven patients with preoperative evidence of bowel endometriosis . INTERVENTIONS We r and omly assigned 227 patients with preoperative evidence of bowel endometriosis to a fast-track protocol ( no preoperative bowel preparation , early restoration of diet , no postoperative antibiotics , and early postoperative mobilization ) or conventional care for laparoscopic intestinal surgery . R and omization was obtained on a double-blind , date -based schedule , and all procedures were performed by a homogenous group of expert surgeons . Surgical outcomes and a health economic evaluation were assessed . MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The primary outcome was hospital stay . Patient 's well-being and intraoperative and postoperative complications up to 30 days after surgery were also assessed . Subsequently , direct medical costs were analyzed . Patients assigned to the fast-track protocol were discharged earlier ( median 3 vs 7 days , p < .001 ) with no significant differences in subjective well-being ( p = .55 ) . Operative details , postoperative complications , and need of temporary ileostomy were similar ( p = .89 ) between groups as well as readmission rates within 30 days ( p = .69 ) . The application of a fast-track protocol result ed in an overall significant reduction of costs ( USD 6699 vs 8674 , p < .01 ) , and differences were more evident in cases of protective stoma ( 7652 vs 8793 , p < .05 ) and surgery with postoperative complications ( 10 835 vs 14 005 , p < .01 ) . CONCLUSION The application of a fast-track care protocol for laparoscopy in cases of pelvic and intestinal endometriosis does not increase the risk of complications and ensures a reduction of medical costs The publication of major studies dealing with the natural history of bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias and major advances in the technology of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators ( ICDs ) has m and ated this revision of the 1991 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Implantation of Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices . This executive summary appears in the April 7 , 1998 issue of Circulation . The full text of the guidelines , including the ACC/AHA Class I , II , and III recommendations , is published in the April 1998 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology . Reprints of both the executive summary and the full text are available from both organizations . Following extensive review of the medical literature and related documents previously published by the American College of Cardiology , the American Heart Association , and the North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology , the writing committee developed recommendations that are evidence based whenever possible . Evidence supporting current recommendations is ranked as level A if the data were derived from multiple r and omized clinical trials involving a large number of individuals . Evidence was ranked as level B when data were derived from a limited number of trials involving comparatively small numbers of patients or from well- design ed data analysis of nonr and omized studies or observational data registries . Evidence was ranked as level C when consensus of expert opinion was the primary source of recommendation . The committee emphasizes that for certain conditions for which no other therapies are available , the indications for device therapies are based on years of clinical experience as well as expert consensus and are thus well supported , even though the evidence was ranked as level C. These guidelines include exp and ed sections on selection of pacemakers and ICDs , optimization of technology , cost , and follow-up of implanted devices . The follow-up sections are relatively brief because in many instances the type and frequency of follow-up examinations In this report , which is an up date of a guideline published in 2002 ( B and elow et al. 2002 , World J Biol Psychiatry 3:171 ) , recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorder , obsessive-compulsive disorder ( OCD ) and post-traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ) are presented . Since the publication of the first version of this guideline , a substantial number of new r and omized controlled studies of anxiolytics have been published . In particular , more relapse prevention studies are now available that show sustained efficacy of anxiolytic drugs . The recommendations , developed by the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry ( WFSBP ) Task Force for the Pharmacological Treatment of Anxiety , Obsessive-Compulsive and Post-traumatic Stress Disorders , a consensus panel of 30 international experts , are now based on 510 published r and omized , placebo- or comparator-controlled clinical studies ( RCTs ) and 130 open studies and case reports . First-line treatments for these disorders are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors ( SSRIs ) , serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors ( SNRIs ) and the calcium channel modulator pregabalin . Tricyclic antidepressants ( TCAs ) are equally effective for some disorders , but many are less well tolerated than the SSRIs/SNRIs . In treatment-resistant cases , benzodiazepines may be used when the patient does not have a history of substance abuse disorders . Potential treatment options for patients unresponsive to st and ard treatments are described in this overview . Although these guidelines focus on medications , non-pharmacological were also considered . Cognitive behavioural therapy ( CBT ) and other variants of behaviour therapy have been sufficiently investigated in controlled studies in patients with anxiety disorders , OCD , and PTSD to support them being recommended either alone or in combination with the above medicines The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver ( APASL ) set up in 2004 on acute-on-chronic liver failure ( ACLF ) was published in 2009 . Due to the rapid advancements in the knowledge and available information , a consortium of members from countries across Asia Pacific , “ APASL ACLF Research Consortium ( AARC ) , ” was formed in 2012 . A large cohort of retrospective and prospect i ve data of ACLF patients was collated and followed up in this data base . The current ACLF definition was reassessed based on the new AARC data base . These initiatives were concluded on a 2-day meeting in February 2014 at New Delhi and led to the development of the final AARC consensus . Only those statements which were based on the evidence and were unanimously recommended were accepted . These statements were circulated again to all the experts and subsequently presented at the annual conference of the APASL at Brisbane , on March 14 , 2014 . The suggestions from the delegates were analyzed by the expert panel , and the modifications in the consensus were made . The final consensus and guidelines document was prepared . After detailed deliberations and data analysis , the original proposed definition was found to withst and the test of time and identify a homogenous group of patients presenting with liver failure . Based on the AARC data , liver failure grading , and its impact on the " Golden therapeutic Window , " extra-hepatic organ failure and development of sepsis were analyzed . New management options including the algorithms for the management of coagulation disorders , renal replacement therapy , sepsis , variceal bleed , antivirals , and criteria for liver transplantation for ACLF patients were proposed . The final consensus statements along with the relevant background information are presented here OBJECTIVES A growing number of atypical antipsychotics are available for clinicians to choose from in the treatment of psychotic disorders . However , a number of important questions concerning medication selection , dosing and dose equivalence , and the management of inadequate response , compliance problems , and relapse have not been adequately addressed by clinical trials . To aid clinical decision-making , a consensus survey of expert opinion on the pharmacologic treatment of psychotic disorders was undertaken to address questions not definitively answered in the research literature . METHOD Based on a literature review , a written survey was developed with 60 questions and 994 options . Approximately half of the options were scored using a modified version of the R AND 9-point scale for rating the appropriateness of medical decisions . For the other options , the experts were asked to write in answers ( e.g. , average doses ) or check a box to indicate their preferred answer . The survey was sent to 50 national experts on the pharmacologic treatment of psychotic disorders , 47 ( 94 % ) of whom completed it . In analyzing the responses to items rated on the 9-point scale , consensus on each option was defined as a non r and om distribution of scores by chi-square " goodness-of-fit"test . We assigned a categorical rank ( first line/preferred choice , second line/alternate choice , third line/usually inappropriate ) to each option based on the 95 % confidence interval around the mean rating . Guideline tables indicating preferred treatment strategies were then developed for key clinical situations . RESULTS The expert panel reached consensus on 88 % of the options rated on the 9-point scale . The experts overwhelmingly endorsed the atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of psychotic disorders . Risperidone was the top choice for first-episode and multi-episode patients , with the other newer atypicals rated first line or high second line depending on the clinical situation . Clozapine and a long-acting injectable atypical ( when available)were other high second line options for multi-episode patients . The expert 's dosing recommendations agreed closely with the package inserts for the drugs , and their estimates of dose equivalence among the antipsychotics followed a linear pattern . The experts considered 3 - 6 weeks an adequate antipsychotic trial , but would wait a little longer ( 4 - 10 weeks ) before making a major change in treatment regimen if there is a partial response . The experts recommended trying to improve response by increasing the dose of atypical and depot antipsychotics before switching to a different agent ; there was less agreement about increasing the dose of conventional antipsychotics before switching , probably because of concern about side effects at higher doses . If it is decided to switch because of inadequate response , risperidone was the expert 's first choice to switch to , no matter what drug was initially tried . Although there was some disparity in the expert 's recommendations concerning how many agents to try before switching to clozapine , the expert 's responses suggest that switching to clozapine should be Clozapine was also the antipsychotic of choice for patients with suicidal behavior . When switching oral antipsychotics , the experts considered cross-titration the preferred strategy . When switching to an injectable antipsychotic , the experts stressed the importance of continuing the oral antipsychotic until therapeutic levels of the injectable agent are achieved . The experts considered psychosocial interventions the first choice strategy for partially compliant patients , with pharmacologic interventions the first choice for patients with clear evidence of noncompliance . However , because it can be difficult to distinguish partially compliant from noncompliant patients , the editors recommended combining psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions to improve compliance whenever possible . When patients relapse because of compliance problems or if there is any doubt about compliance , the experts recommended the use of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic and would select an injectable atypical when this option becomes available . The experts would also consider using an injectable atypical antipsychotic ( when available ) in many clinical situations that do not involve compliance problems . The experts stressed the importance of monitoring for health problems-especially obesity , diabetes , cardiovascular problems , HIV risk behaviors , medical complications of substance abuse , heavy smoking and its effects , hypertension , and amenorrhea-in patients being treated with antipsychotics . Although many patients are prescribed adjunctive treatments , multiple antipsychotics , and combinations of different classes of drugs ( e.g. , antipsychotics plus mood stabilizers or antidepressants ) in an effort to enhance response , the experts gave little support to any of these strategies , with the exception of antidepressants for patients with  dysphoria/depression  , antidepressants or ECT for patients with suicidal behavior , and mood stabilizers for patients with aggression/violence . When asked about indicators of remission and recovery , the experts considered acute improvement in psychotic symptoms the most important indicator of remission , whereas they considered more sustained improvement in multiple outcome domains ( e.g. , occupational/educational functioning , peer relationships , independent living ) important in assessing recovery . CONCLUSIONS The experts reached a high level of consensus on many of the key treatment questions in the survey . Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence , these guidelines provide direction for addressing common clinical dilemmas that arise in the pharmacologic treatment of psychotic disorders . They can be used to inform clinicians and educate patients regarding the relative merits of a variety of interventions . Clinicians should keep in mind that no guidelines can address the complexities involved in the care of each individual patient and that sound clinical judgment based on clinical experience should be used in applying these recommendations BACKGROUND This position statement was developed to expedite a consensus on definition and treatment for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ( BRPC ) that would have worldwide acceptability . METHODS An international panel of pancreatic surgeons from well-established , high-volume centers collaborated on a literature review and development of consensus on issues related to borderline resectable pancreatic cancer . RESULTS The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery ( ISGPS ) supports the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for the definition of BRPC . Current evidence supports operative exploration and resection in the case of involvement of the mesentericoportal venous axis ; in addition , a new classification of extrahepatic mesentericoportal venous resections is proposed by the ISGPS . Suspicion of arterial involvement should lead to exploration to confirm the imaging-based findings . Formal arterial resections are not recommended ; however , in exceptional circumstances , individual therapeutic approaches may be evaluated under experimental protocol s. The ISGPS endorses the recommendations for specimen examination and the definition of an R1 resection ( tumor within 1 mm from the margin ) used by the British Royal College of Pathologists . St and ard preoperative diagnostics for BRPC may include : ( 1 ) serum levels of CA19 - 9 , because CA19 - 9 levels predict survival in large retrospective series ; and also ( 2 ) the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio because of the prognostic relevance of the systemic inflammatory response . Various regimens of neoadjuvant therapy are recommended only in the setting of prospect i ve trials at high-volume centers . CONCLUSION Current evidence justifies portomesenteric venous resection in patients with BRPC . Basic definitions were identified , that are currently lacking but that are needed to obtain further evidence and improvement for this important patient subgroup . A consensus for each topic is given CONTEXT Timely adoption of clinical practice guidelines is more likely to happen when the guidelines are used in combination with adjuvant educational strategies that address social as well as rational influences . OBJECTIVE To implement the conservative , evidence -based approach to low-back pain recommended in national guidelines , with the anticipated effect of reducing population -based rates of surgery . DESIGN A r and omized , controlled trial . SETTING Ten communities in western Washington State with annual rates of back surgery above the 1990 national average ( 158 operations per 100,000 adults ) . PARTICIPANTS Spine surgeons , primary care physicians , patients who were surgical c and i date s , and hospital administrators . INTERVENTION The five communities r and omized to the intervention group received a package of six educational activities tailored to local needs by community planning groups . Surgeon study groups , primary care continuing medical education conferences , administrative consensus processes , videodisc-aided patient decision making , surgical outcomes management , and generalist academic detailing were serially implemented over a 30-month intervention period . OUTCOME MEASURE Quarterly observations of surgical rates . RESULTS After implementation of the intervention , surgery rates declined in the intervention communities but increased slightly in the control communities . The net effect of the intervention is estimated to be a decline of 20.9 operations per 100,000 , a relative reduction of 8.9 % ( P = 0.01 ) . CONCLUSION We were able to use scientific evidence to engender voluntary change in back pain practice patterns across entire communities The British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines specify the scope and targets of treatment for bipolar disorder . The third version is based explicitly on the available evidence and presented , like previous Clinical Practice Guidelines , as recommendations to aid clinical decision making for practitioners : it may also serve as a source of information for patients and carers , and assist audit . The recommendations are presented together with a more detailed review of the corresponding evidence . A consensus meeting , involving experts in bipolar disorder and its treatment , review ed key areas and considered the strength of evidence and clinical implication s. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from these participants . The best evidence from r and omized controlled trials and , where available , observational studies employing quasi-experimental design s was used to evaluate treatment options . The strength of recommendations has been described using the GRADE approach . The guidelines cover the diagnosis of bipolar disorder , clinical management , and strategies for the use of medicines in short-term treatment of episodes , relapse prevention and stopping treatment . The use of medication is integrated with a coherent approach to psychoeducation and behaviour change More than 25 % of the U.S. population aged ≥65 years has diabetes ( 1 ) , and the aging of the overall population is a significant driver of the diabetes epidemic . Although the burden of diabetes is often described in terms of its impact on working-age adults , diabetes in older adults is linked to higher mortality , reduced functional status , and increased risk of institutionalization ( 2 ) . Older adults with diabetes are at substantial risk for both acute and chronic microvascular and cardiovascular complications of the disease . Despite having the highest prevalence of diabetes of any age-group , older persons and /or those with multiple comorbidities have often been excluded from r and omized controlled trials of treatments— and treatment targets — for diabetes and its associated conditions . Heterogeneity of health status of older adults ( even within an age range ) and the dearth of evidence from clinical trials present challenges to determining st and ard intervention strategies that fit all older adults . To address these issues , the American Diabetes Association ( ADA ) convened a Consensus Development Conference on Diabetes and Older Adults ( defined as those aged ≥65 years ) in February 2012 . Following a series of scientific presentations by experts in the field , the writing group independently developed this consensus report to address the following questions : 1 . What is the epidemiology and pathogenesis of diabetes in older adults ? 2 . What is the evidence for preventing and treating diabetes and its common comorbidities in older adults ? 3 . What current guidelines exist for treating diabetes in older adults ? 4 . What issues need to be considered in individualizing treatment recommendations for older adults ? 5 . What are consensus recommendations for treating older adults with or at risk for diabetes ? 6 . How can gaps in the evidence best be filled ? According to the most recent surveillance data , the prevalence of diabetes among U.S. adults aged ≥65 years varies from 22 to 33 % , depending on the diagnostic criteria Traditionally pregnancy has been considered ‘ post-term ’ at 42 completed weeks of gestation . At this gestation , if the cervix is unfavourable , debate over best practice has been between routine induction of labour and expectant management with some form of serial fetal monitoring . Popular wisdom seems to be that meta- analysis of the available r and omised controlled trials has settled the question in favour of routine induction . The largest included trial , containing over half the cases ( n 1⁄4 3407 ) , was carried out in Canada and published in 1992 . The results of the meta- analysis led the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada ( SOGC ) to issue Clinical Practice Guidelines in 1997 . The guidelines recommended that : 1 . after 41 completed weeks of gestation , if the date s are certain , women should be offered elective delivery ; 2 . if the cervix is unfavourable , ripening should be undertaken ; and 3 . if expectant management is chosen , assessment of fetal health should be initiated . It is presumed that r and omised controlled trials or , even better , meta-analyses of r and omised trials , provide the best evidence to determine appropriate care . However , once information has been declared ‘ the best available evidence ’ , particularly if that assertion is used to justify clinical practice guidelines or ‘ consensus ’ , further inquiry may be inhibited . Since it is implied that ‘ the answers are all in ’ , mutation from clinical practice guideline to st and ard of care is prompt and uncomplicated , particularly if the labels ‘ consensus ’ or ‘ policy statement ’ are used between the two as conceptual mutagens . The st and ard of care in Canada now is assumed to be routine induction at 41 weeks . This commentary is intended to give pause to those who have accepted and adopted this st and ard Traditional clinical review articles , also known as up date s , differ from systematic review s and meta-analyses . Up date s selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly . Non-quantitative systematic review s comprehensively examine the medical literature , seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment . Meta-analyses ( quantitative systematic review s ) seek to answer a focused clinical question , using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies . This article presents guidelines for writing an evidence -based clinical review article for American Family Physician . First , the topic should be of common interest and relevance to family practice . Include a table of the continuing medical education objectives of the review . State how the literature search was done and include several sources of evidence -based review s , such as the Cochrane Collaboration , BMJ 's Clinical Evidence , or the InfoRetriever Web site . Where possible , use evidence based on clinical outcomes relating to morbidity , mortality , or quality of life , and studies of primary care population s. In articles su bmi tted to American Family Physician , rate the level of evidence for key recommendations according to the following scale : level A ( r and omized controlled trial [ RCT ] , meta- analysis ) ; level B ( other evidence ) ; level C ( consensus/expert opinion ) . Finally , provide a table of key summary points Evidence -based medicine is built on a foundation of r and omized trials . Interpretation of trials depends on whether a predetermined difference ( effect size ) between intervention and control groups was observed and the likelihood of this being due to chance ( statistical significance ) . It is now generally agreed that the effect size for which a trial is powered should be just large enough to be clinical ly significant . Introduction of the concept of minimal important difference ( MID ) in the 1980s was followed by an emerging stream of research aim ed at assessing this quantity in a variety of disease conditions , followed by rapidly increasing use of MID among research ers and regulators . To date , however , MID methods focus on benefit magnitude alone , ignoring side effects , adverse events , and other harms . This article 1 ) argues that MID should be replaced with ‘ ‘ sufficiently important difference ’ ’ ( SID ) , a concept that includes balancing of benefits against harms , and 2 ) outlines a few pressing research questions and challenges related to this incipient field . Sufficiently important difference was originally defined as ‘ ‘ the smallest amount of patient-valued benefit that an intervention would require to justify associated costs , risks and other harms . ’ ’ SID is understood in the context of existing evidence and is measured at the individual level . Perhaps the concept underlying SID should instead been named ‘ ‘ smallest worthwhile effect ’ ’ ( SWE ) , as that phrase seems to have more intuitive appeal . Because people value various benefits and harms differently , SID/SWE varies across population s. Because the assessment of benefits and harms changes as science evolves , SID/SWE estimates may change . Yet even in relatively evolved and evidence -rich areas , such as preventing and treating cardiovascular disease or screening for breast or colon cancer , questions regarding SID/SWE lie almost completely unexplored . For example , we do n’t know whether closer to 10 % , 50 % , or 90 % of people targeted for cholesterol , blood pressure , or blood sugar – lowering drugs or for cancer screening using colonoscopy or mammography would deem expected benefits sufficient to justify expected harms , should they underst and the evidence . We know that these interventions are widely promoted and that some benefits are expected , but we do n’t know whether or to what degree that associated benefit-harm tradeoffs correspond to target population health values . Although great progress has been made in the evidence -based assessment of benefits and harms , very little is known about how individuals and population s would value and use that evidence in decision making , should it be presented to them in an underst and able manner . The purpose of this article , then , is to call for an expansion of inquiry in this direction , to suggest a few research questions and method ological avenues , and to briefly list some of the challenges that may emerge . Arguably , the era of evidence -based medicine ( EBM ) began with Archie Cochrane , after whom the Cochrane collaboration was named . Cochrane , followed by notables such as Gordon Guyatt , David Sackett , and others , exhorted the medical Received 15 February 2012 from Department of Family Medicine , University of Wisconsin – Madison , Madison , WI ( BB ) . Revision accepted for publication 5 December 2012 Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Barrett ’s esophagus were published by the American College of Gastroenterology in 1998 ( 1 ) . These and other guidelines undergo periodic review . Significant advances have been made in the area of Barrett ’s esophagus over the past several years , leading us to review and revise our previous guidelines statements . These advances have included more information on the natural history of high- grade dysplasia and the chronic use of proton pump inhibitors . These and the original guidelines are intended to apply to all physicians who address Barrett ’s and are intended to indicate the preferable , but not only acceptable , approach . Physicians must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables that exist at the moment of the decision . These guidelines are intended to apply to adult patients with the diagnosis of Barrett ’s esophagus defined in the guidelines . Both these and the original guidelines were developed under the auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and its Practice Parameters Committee and approved by the Board of Trustees . The world literature was review ed extensively for the original guidelines and was once again review ed using the National Library of Medicine data base . All appropriate studies were review ed , and any additional studies found in the reference list of these papers were obtained and review ed . Evidence was evaluated along a hierarchy , with r and omized controlled trials given the greatest weight . Abstract s presented at national and international meetings were only used when unique data from ongoing trials were presented . When scientific data were lacking , recommendations were based on expert consensus . During preparation , the guidelines were review ed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American Society for GI Endoscopy . Recommendations and comments obtained from these review s were incorporated into the final document whenever possible BACKGROUND Abnormal uterine bleeding is the direct cause of a significant health care burden for women , their families , and society as a whole . Up to 30 % of women will seek medical assistance for this problem during their reproductive years . This guideline replaces previous clinical guidelines on the topic and is aim ed to enable health care providers with the tools to provide the latest evidence -based care in the diagnosis and the medical and surgical management of this common problem . OBJECTIVE To provide current evidence -based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of  abnormal uterine bleeding ( AUB ) among women of reproductive age . OUTCOMES Outcomes evaluated include the impact of AUB on quality of life and the results of interventions including medical and surgical management of AUB . METHODS Members of the guideline committee were selected on the basis of individual expertise to represent a range of practical and academic experience in terms of location in Canada , type of practice , subspecialty expertise , and general gynaecology background . The committee review ed relevant evidence in the English medical literature including published guidelines . Recommendations were established as consensus statements . The final document was review ed and approved by the Executive and Council of the SOGC . RESULTS This document provides a summary of up-to- date evidence regarding diagnosis , investigations , and medical and surgical management of AUB . The result ing recommendations may be adapted by individual health care workers when serving women with this condition . CONCLUSIONS Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common and sometimes debilitating condition in women of reproductive age . St and ardization of related terminology , a systematic approach to diagnosis and investigation , and a step-wise approach to intervention is necessary . Treatment commencing with medical therapeutic modalities followed by the least invasive surgical modalities achieving results satisfactory to the patient is the ultimate goal of all therapeutic interventions . EVIDENCE Published literature was retrieved through search es of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library in March 2011 using appropriate controlled vocabulary ( e.g. uterine hemorrhage , menorrhagia ) and key words ( e.g. menorrhagia , heavy menstrual bleeding , abnormal uterine bleeding ) . Results were restricted to systematic review s , r and omized control trials/controlled clinical trials , and observational studies written in English and published from January 1999 to March 2011 . Search es were up date d on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to February 2013 . Grey ( unpublished ) literature was identified through search ing the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies , clinical practice guideline collection s , clinical trial registries , and national and international medical specialty societies . VALUES The quality of evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care ( Table ) . BENEFITS , HARMS , AND COSTS Implementation of the guideline recommendations will improve the health and well-being of women with abnormal uterine bleeding , their families , and society . The economic cost of implementing these guidelines in the Canadian health care system was not considered Objective : To develop consensus statements for the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid insufficiency in critically ill adult patients . Participants : A multidisciplinary , multispecialty task force of experts in critical care medicine was convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine . In addition , international experts in endocrinology were invited to participate . Design / Methods : The task force members review ed published literature and provided expert opinion from which the consensus was derived . The consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi methodology . The strength of each recommendation was quantified using the Modified GRADE system , which classifies recommendations as strong ( grade 1 ) or weak ( grade 2 ) and the quality of evidence as high ( grade A ) , moderate ( grade B ) , or low ( grade C ) based on factors that include the study design , the consistency of the results , and the directness of the evidence . Results : The task force coined the term critical illness – related corticosteroid insufficiency to describe the dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis that occurs during critical illness . Critical illness – related corticosteroid insufficiency is caused by adrenal insufficiency together with tissue corticosteroid resistance and is characterized by an exaggerated and protracted proinflammatory response . Critical illness – related corticosteroid insufficiency should be suspected in hypotensive patients who have responded poorly to fluids and vasopressor agents , particularly in the setting of sepsis . At this time , the diagnosis of tissue corticosteroid resistance remains problematic . Adrenal insufficiency in critically ill patients is best made by a delta total serum cortisol of < 9 & mgr;g/dL after adrenocorticotrophic hormone ( 250 & mgr;g ) administration or a r and om total cortisol of < 10 & mgr;g/dL. The benefit of treatment with glucocorticoids at this time seems to be limited to patients with vasopressor-dependent septic shock and patients with early severe acute respiratory distress syndrome ( Pao2/Fio2 of < 200 and within 14 days of onset ) . The adrenocorticotrophic hormone stimulation test should not be used to identify those patients with septic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome who should receive glucocorticoids . Hydrocortisone in a dose of 200 mg/day in four divided doses or as a continuous infusion in a dose of 240 mg/day ( 10 mg/hr ) for ≥7 days is recommended for septic shock . Methylprednisolone in a dose of 1 mg·kg−1·day−1 for ≥14 days is recommended in patients with severe early acute respiratory distress syndrome . Glucocorticoids should be weaned and not stopped abruptly . Reinstitution of treatment should be considered with recurrence of signs of sepsis , hypotension , or worsening oxygenation .  Dexamethasone is not recommended to treat critical illness – related corticosteroid insufficiency . The role of glucocorticoids in the management of patients with community-acquired pneumonia , liver failure , pancreatitis , those undergoing cardiac surgery , and other groups of critically ill patients requires further investigation . Conclusion : Evidence -linked consensus statements with regard to the diagnosis and management of corticosteroid deficiency in critically ill patients have been developed by a multidisciplinary , multispecialty task force This document presents consensus panel recommendations for the medical care of pregnant women with preexisting diabetes , including type 1 and type 2 diabetes . The intent is to help clinicians deal with the broad spectrum of problems that arise in management of diabetes before and during pregnancy , and to prepare diabetic women for treatment that may reduce complications in the years after pregnancy . A thorough discussion of the evidence supporting the recommendations is presented in the book , Management of Preexisting Diabetes and Pregnancy , authored by the consensus panel and published by the American Diabetes Association ( ADA ) in 2008 ( 1 ) . A consensus statement on obstetrical and postpartum management will appear separately . The recommendations are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by diabetes . The grading system adapted by the ADA was used to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations ( 2 ) . Unfortunately there is a paucity of r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) of the different aspects of management of diabetes and pregnancy . Therefore our recommendations are often based on trials conducted in nonpregnant diabetic women or nondiabetic pregnant women , as well as on peer- review ed experience before and during pregnancy in women with preexisting diabetes ( 3–4 ) . We also review ed and adapted existing diabetes and pregnancy guidelines ( 5–10 ) and guidelines on diabetes complications and comorbidities ( 2,3,11–14 ) . # # # A. Organization of preconception and pregnancy care # # # # H istorically , nutrition principles and recommendations for diabetes and related complications have been based on scientific evidence and diabetes knowledge when available and , when evidence was not available , on clinical experience and expert consensus . Often it has been difficult to discern the level of evidence used to construct the nutrition principles and recommendations . Furthermore , in clinical practice , many nutrition recommendations that have no scientific supporting evidence have been and are still being given to individuals with diabetes . To address these problems and to incorporate the research done in the past 8 years , this 2002 technical review provides principles and recommendations classified according to the level of evidence available . It review s the evidence from r and omized , controlled trials ; cohort and case-controlled studies ; and observational studies , which can also provide valuable evidence ( 1,2 ) , and takes into account the number of studies that have provided consistent outcomes of support . In this review , nutrition principles are grade d into four categories based on the available evidence : those with strong supporting evidence , those with some supporting evidence , those with limited supporting evidence and those based on expert consensus . Evidence -based nutrition recommendations attempt to translate research data and clinical ly applicable evidence into nutrition care . However , the best available evidence must still be moderated by individual circumstances and preferences . The goal of evidence -based recommendations is to improve the quality of clinical judgments and facilitate costeffective care by increasing the awareness of clinicians and patients with diabetes of the evidence supporting nutrition services and the strength of that evidence , both in quality and quantity . Before 1994 , the American Diabetes Association ’s ( ADA ’s ) nutrition principles and recommendations attempted to define an “ ideal ” nutrition prescription that would apply to everyone with diabetes ( 3–5 ) . Although individualization was a major principle of all recommendations , it was usually done within defined limits for recommended energy intake and macronutrient composition . The 1994 nutrition recommendations shifted this focus to one that emphasized effects of  nutrition therapy  on metabolic control ( 6,7 ) . The nutrition prescription is determined considering treatment goals and lifestyle changes the diabetic patient is willing and able to make , rather than predetermined energy levels and percentages of carbohydrate , protein , and fat . The goal of nutrition intervention is to assist and facilitate individual lifestyle and behavior changes that will lead to improved metabolic control . This focus continues with the 2002 nutrition principles and recommendations . Medical nutrition therapy ( MNT ) is an integral component of diabetes management ( 8,9 ) and diabetes sel fmanagement education ( 10 ) . ( Medical nutrition therapy is the preferred term and should replace other terms , such as diet , diet therapy , and dietary management .  ) MNT for diabetes includes the process and the system by which nutrition care is provided for diabetic individuals and the specific lifestyle recommendations for that care . However , recommendations should not only be based on scientific evidence but should also take into consideration lifestyle changes the ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Objective : To determine the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways ( ERPs ) versus conventional care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery . Background : ERPs for colorectal surgery are clinical ly effective , but their cost-effectiveness is unknown . Methods : A multi-institutional prospect i ve cohort cost-effectiveness analysis was performed . Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection at 2 university-affiliated institutions from October 2012 to October 2013 were enrolled . One center used an ERP , whereas the other did not . Postoperative outcomes were recorded up to 60 days . Total costs were reported in 2013 Canadian dollars . Effectiveness was measured using the SF-6D , a health utility measure vali date d for postoperative recovery . Uncertainty was expressed using bootstrapped estimates ( 10,000 repetitions ) . Results : A total of 180 patients were included  ( conventional care : n = 95 ; ERP : n = 95 ) . There were no differences in patient characteristics except for a higher proportion of laparoscopy in the ERP group . Mean length of stay was shorter in the ERP group ( 6.5 vs 9.8 days ; P = 0.017 ) , but there were no differences in complications or readmissions . Patients in the ERP group returned to work quicker and had less caregiver burden . There was no difference in quality of life between the 2 groups . The cost of the ERP program was $ 153 per patient . Overall societal costs were lower in the ERP group ( mean difference = −2985 ; 95 % confidence interval , −5753 to −373 ) . The ERP had a greater than 99 % probability of cost-effectiveness . The results were insensitive to a range of assumptions and subgroups . Conclusions : Enhanced recovery is cost-effective compared with conventional perioperative management for elective colorectal resection OBJECTIVE To provide up date d , evidence -based recommendations for the therapy of hypertension in adults . OPTIONS For patients with hypertension , a number of antihypertensive agents may control blood pressure . R and omized trials evaluating first-line therapy with thiazides , beta-adrenergic antagonists , angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors , calcium channel blockers , alpha-blockers , central ly acting agents or angiotensin II receptor antagonists were review ed . OUTCOMES The health outcomes that were considered were changes in blood pressure , cardiovascular morbidity , and cardiovascular and /or all-cause mortality rates . Economic outcomes were not considered due to insufficient evidence . EVIDENCE MEDLINE was search ed for the period March 1999 to October 2001 to identify studies not included in the 2000 revision of the Canadian Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension . Reference lists were scanned , experts were polled , and the personal files of the subgroup members and authors were used to identify other published studies . All relevant articles were review ed and appraised , using prespecified levels of evidence , by content experts and method ological experts . VALUES A high value was placed on the avoidance of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality . BENEFITS , HARMS AND COSTS Various antihypertensive agents reduce the blood pressure of patients with sustained hypertension . In certain setting s , and for specific classes of drugs , blood-pressure lowering has been associated with reduced cardiovascular morbidity and /or mortality . RECOMMENDATIONS The present document contains detailed recommendations pertaining to treatment thresholds , target blood pressures , and choice of agents in various setting s in patients with hypertension . The main changes from the 2000 Recommendations are the addition of a section on the treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus , the amalgamation of the previous sections on treatment of hypertension in the young and old into one section , increased emphasis on the role of combination therapies over repeated trials of single agents and expansion of the section on the treatment of hypertension after stroke . Implicit in the recommendations for therapy is the principle that treatment for an individual patient should take into consideration global cardiovascular risk , the presence and /or absence of target organ damage , and comorbidities . VALIDATION All recommendations were grade d according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the Canadian Hypertension Recommendations Working Group . Individuals with potential conflicts of interest relative to any specific recommendation were excluded from voting on that recommendation . Only those recommendations achieving high levels of consensus are reported here . These guidelines will continue to be up date d annually PURPOSE Given the lack of r and omized trials comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy ( RARP ) and open radical prostatectomy ( ORP ) , we sought to re-examine the outcomes of these techniques using a cohort of patients treated in the postdissemination era . PATIENTS AND METHODS Overall , data from 5,915 patients with prostate cancer treated with RARP or ORP within the SEER-Medicare linked data base diagnosed between October 2008 and December 2009 were abstract ed .  Postoperative complications , blood transfusions , prolonged length of stay ( pLOS ) , readmission , additional cancer therapies , and costs of care within the first year after surgery were compared between the two surgical approaches . To decrease the effect of unmeasured confounders , instrumental variable analysis was performed . Multivariable logistic regression analyses were then performed . RESULTS Overall , 2,439 patients ( 41.2 % ) and 3,476 patients ( 58.8 % ) underwent ORP and RARP , respectively . In multivariable analyses , patients undergoing RARP had similar odds of overall complications , readmission , and additional cancer therapies compared with patients undergoing ORP . However , RARP was associated with a higher probability of experiencing 30- and 90-day genitourinary and miscellaneous medical complications ( all P ≤ .02 ) . Additionally , RARP led to a lower risk of experiencing blood transfusion and of having a pLOS ( all P < .001 ) . Finally , first-year reimbursements were greater for patients undergoing RARP compared with ORP ( P < .001 ) . CONCLUSION RARP and ORP have comparable rates of complications and additional cancer therapies , even in the postdissemination era . Although RARP was associated with lower risk of blood transfusions and a slightly shorter length of stay , these benefits do not translate to a decrease in expenditures Introduction Unscheduled hospital admissions are an increasing burden on health systems worldwide . To date , initiatives to reduce admissions have had limited success as it is unclear which strategies effectively reduce admissions and are supported by a strong evidence -base . Therefore , we will conduct an overview to find , assess and summarise all published peer- review ed systematic review s of r and omised controlled trials that examine the effect of an intervention on  unplanned admissions among adults . Methods and analysis This is a protocol for a systematic overview of review s. We will search four data bases : Ovid MEDLINE , PubMed , Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s and the Cochrane Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Effects . We will consider systematic review s and meta-analyses of r and omised controlled trials in adults ( ≥16 years old ) evaluating the effect of any intervention on unscheduled hospital admissions including those to treat , monitor , diagnose or prevent a health problem . We will only include review s that identified unscheduled hospitalisations as a prespecified outcome . Two authors will independently screen articles for inclusion using a priori criteria . We will assess the quality of included review s and extract ratings of the quality of evidence from within each review . We will create a hierarchical list of interventions based on estimates of absolute admission reductions and the quality of the evidence . Presentation of results will align with guidelines in the Cochrane H and book of Systematic Review s of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta- Analysis statement . Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required . We will su bmi t the results of this study for peer- review publication . The results will inform future research and could be used by healthcare managers , administrators and policymakers to guide re source allocation decisions and inform local implementation and optimisation of interventions to reduce unscheduled hospital admissions Low  back pain  has long been described as a challenge for both primary care physicians and specialists . Management of  low back pain  has also been criticized as frequently arbitrary , inappropriate , or ineffective . Contributing factors have been an inadequate evidence base and a need for more rigorous appraisal s of the available literature . Evidence -based medicine , an approach to clinical problem solving , is predicated on the premise that high- quality health care will result from practice s consistent with the best evidence . In contrast to the traditional medical paradigm that placed a heavy reliance on expert opinion , authority , and un systematic clinical observations , evidence -based medicine emphasizes the need for rigorous critical appraisal s of the scientific literature to inform medical decision making . Evidence -based medicine places strong weight on the requirement for valid studies , particularly r and omized controlled trials , to appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions . Because of the rapidly increasing volume of medical literature , however , most clinicians are unable to keep up-to- date with all the new data . Two types of preprocessed evidence that can aid busy clinicians in medical decision making are systematic review s and evidence -based clinical practice guidelines . Like primary studies , systematic review s and clinical practice guidelines must adhere to high method ologic st and ards to reduce error and bias . As in other areas of medicine , the approach to the management of low back pain has been positively affected by the availability of more clinical trials and better use of critical appraisal techniques to evaluate and apply research findings . In addition to more rigorous primary studies , an increasing number of high- quality systematic review s and evidence -based clinical practice guidelines for low back pain are also available . Although some research gaps and method ologic shortcomings persist , the richer evidence base has greatly improved our underst and ing of what does and does not work for low back pain . Despite these advances , the best available evidence often does not inform everyday clinical decisions for low back pain . Nonetheless , there is widespread agreement that adherence to evidence -based practice will help improve low back pain patient outcomes and reduce arbitrary variations in care . This article review s basic principles of evidence -based medicine , discusses evidence -based medicine in the context of low back pain management , and summarizes some useful evidence -based medicine re sources Background Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most common complications affecting patients after surgery and causes significant morbidity and increased length of hospital stay . It is accepted that patients undergoing surgery on the bowel are at a higher risk . In the current era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery combined with enhanced recovery , reducing the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting is particularly important . Dexamethasone is widely , but not universally used . It is known to improve appetite and gastric emptying , thus reduce vomiting . However , this benefit is not established in patients undergoing bowel surgery , and dexamethasone has possible side effects such as increased risk of wound infection and anastomotic leak that could adversely affect recovery . Design DREAMS is a phase III , double-blind , multicenter , r and omized controlled trial with the primary objective of determining if preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal resections . DREAMS aims to r and omize 1,350 patients over 2.5 years . Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open colorectal resections for malignant or benign pathology are r and omized between 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone and control ( no dexamethasone ) . All patients are given one additional antiemetic at the time of induction , prior to r and omization . Both the patient and their surgeon are blinded as to the treatment arm . Secondary objectives of the DREAMS trial are to determine whether there are other measurable benefits during recovery from surgery with the use of dexamethasone , including quicker return to oral diet and reduced length of stay . Health-related quality of life , fatigue and risks of infections will be investigated . Trial registration IS RCT PURPOSE To provide up date d recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism ( VTE ) in patients with cancer . METHODS PubMed and the Cochrane Library were search ed for r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1 , 2014 , through December 4 , 2018 . ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed . RESULTS The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment . Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants ( DOACs ) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin ( LMWH ) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers . Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE . RECOMMENDATIONS Changes to previous recommendations : Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban , rivaroxaban , or LMWH to selected high-risk out patients with cancer ; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment ; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section ; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been exp and ed . Re-affirmed recommendations : Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization . Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all out patients with cancer . Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days . Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk , and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care- guidelines In the era of evidence -based practice ( EBP ) , R and omized Controlled Trials ( RCTs ) may provide the best evidence of the efficacy of nursing interventions and yet the quality of RCT reporting in nursing literature has not been evaluated . The purpose s of this study were to apply the Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ) statement to published reports of nursing science , examine how adequately the published reports adhere to the statement , and examine the effect of the adoption of CONSORT on the quality of the RCT published reports . One hundred RCTs from 2002 - 2005 were identified from 4 nursing journals . Articles were r and omly assigned to 4 review ers and the quality of the published reports was evaluated using a modified CONSORT checklist . There was no difference between the 4 journals in the quality of the published reports of RCTs based on the modified CONSORT checklist employed ( F = 1.27 , P = .29 ) . The quality of reporting of RCTs improved significantly in the only journal , Nursing Research , to adopt the CONSORT statement during the study period ( t = -2.70 , P = .01 ) . Adoption of CONSORT is recommended as it may lead to an overall improvement in quality of reporting of RCTs in nursing journals . The profession may also wish to explore the use or development of st and ards similar to CONSORT but ones more appropriate for the types of research typical of that published by nurse scientists During the past three decades , catheter and surgical ablation of  atrial fibrillation ( AF ) have evolved from investigational procedures to their current role as effective treatment options for patients with AF .  Surgical ablation of AF , using either st and ard , minimally invasive , or hybrid techniques , is available in most major hospitals throughout the world . Catheter ablation of AF is even more widely available , and is now the most commonly performed catheter ablation procedure . In 2007 , an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society ( HRS ) , the European Heart Rhythm Association ( EHRA ) , and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS).1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons ( STS ) and the American College of Cardiology ( ACC ) . This Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was rewritten in 2012 to reflect the many advances in AF ablation that had occurred in the interim.2 The rate of advancement in the tools , techniques , and outcomes of AF ablation continue to increase as enormous research efforts are focused on the mechanisms , outcomes , and treatment of AF . For this reason , the HRS initiated an effort to rewrite and up date this Consensus Statement . Reflecting both the worldwide importance of AF , as well as the worldwide performance of AF ablation , this document is the result of a joint partnership between the HRS , EHRA , ECAS , the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society ( APHRS ) , and the Latin American Society of Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology ( Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia [ SOLAECE ] ) . The purpose of this 2017 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a writing group , convened by these five international societies . The writing group is charged with defining the indications , techniques , and outcomes of AF ablation procedures . Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation and the reporting of outcomes , including definitions relevant to this topic . The writing group is composed of 60 experts representing 11 organizations : HRS , EHRA , ECAS , APHRS , SOLAECE , STS , ACC , American Heart Association ( AHA ) , Canadian Heart Rhythm Society ( CHRS ) , Japanese Heart Rhythm Society ( JHRS ) , and Brazilian Society of Cardiac Arrhythmias ( Sociedade Brasileira de Arritmias Cardiacas [ SOBRAC ] ) . All the members of the writing group , as well as peer review ers of the document , have provided disclosure statements for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest . All author and peer review er disclosure information is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. In writing a consensus document , it is recognized that consensus does not mean that there was complete agreement among all the writing group members . Surveys of the entire writing group were used to identify areas of consensus concerning performance of AF ablation procedures and to develop recommendations concerning the indications for catheter and surgical AF ablation . These recommendations were systematic ally balloted by the 60 writing group members and were approved by a minimum of 80 % of these members . The recommendations were also subject to a 1-month public comment period . Each partnering and collaborating organization then officially review ed , commented on , edited , and endorsed the final document and recommendations . The grading system for indication of class of evidence level was adapted based on that used by the ACC and the AHA.3,4 It is important to state , however , that this document is not a guideline . The indications for catheter and surgical ablation of AF , as well as recommendations for procedure performance , are presented with a Class and Level of Evidence ( LOE ) to be consistent with what the reader is familiar with seeing in guideline statements . A Class I recommendation means that the benefits of the AF ablation procedure markedly exceed the risks , and that AF ablation should be performed ; a Class IIa recommendation means that the benefits of an AF ablation procedure exceed the risks , and that it is reasonable to perform AF ablation ; a Class IIb recommendation means that the benefit of AF ablation is greater or equal to the risks , and that AF ablation may be considered ; and a Class III recommendation means that AF ablation is of no proven benefit and is not recommended . The writing group review ed and ranked evidence supporting current recommendations with the weight of evidence ranked as Level A if the data were derived from high- quality evidence from more than one r and omized clinical trial , meta-analyses of high- quality r and omized clinical trials , or one or more r and omized clinical trials corroborated by high- quality registry studies . The writing group ranked available evidence as Level B-R when there was moderate- quality evidence from one or more r and omized clinical trials , or meta-analyses of moderate- quality r and omized clinical trials . Level B-NR was used to denote moderate- quality evidence from one or more well- design ed , well-executed nonr and omized studies , observational studies , or registry studies . This design ation was also used to denote moderate- quality evidence from meta-analyses of such studies . Evidence was ranked as Level C-LD when the primary source of the recommendation was r and omized or nonr and omized observational or registry studies with limitations of design or execution , meta-analyses of such studies , or physiological or mechanistic studies of human subjects . Level C-EO was defined as expert opinion based on the clinical experience of the writing group . Despite a large number of authors , the participation of several societies and professional organizations , and the attempts of the group to reflect the current knowledge in the field adequately , this document is not intended as a guideline . Rather , the group would like to refer to the current guidelines on AF management for the purpose of guiding overall AF management strategies.5,6 This consensus document is specifically focused on catheter and surgical ablation of AF , and summarizes the opinion of the writing group members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience . It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF , particularly those who are caring for patients who are undergoing , or are being considered for , catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF , and those involved in research in the field of AF ablation . This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter or surgical ablation of AF . Rather , the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the health care provider and the patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient . The main objective of this document is to improve patient care by providing a foundation of knowledge for those involved with catheter ablation of AF . A second major objective is to provide recommendations for design ing clinical trials and reporting outcomes of clinical trials of AF ablation . It is recognized that this field continues to evolve rapidly . As this document was being prepared , further clinical trials of catheter and surgical ablation of AF were under way UNLABELLED Aim Integrated care pathways ( ICP ) are management technologies which formalise multidisciplinary team-working and enable professionals to examine their roles and responsibilities . ICPs are now being implemented across international healthcare arena , but evidence to support their use is equivocal . The aim of this study was to identify the circumstances in which ICPs are effective , for whom and in what context s. Methods A systematic review of high- quality r and omised controlled trials published between 1980 and 2008 ( March ) evaluating  ICP use in child and adult population s in the full range of healthcare setting s. RESULTS 1 For relatively predictable trajectories of care ICPs can be effective in supporting proactive care management and ensuring that patients receive relevant clinical interventions and /or assessment s in a timely manner . This can lead to improvements in service quality and service efficiency without adverse consequences for patients . 2 ICPs are an effective mechanism for promoting adherence to guidelines or treatment protocol s thereby reducing variation in practice . 3 ICPs can be effective in improving documentation of treatment goals , documentation of communication with patients , carers and health professionals . 4 ICPs can be effective in improving physician agreement about treatment options . 5 ICPs can be effective in supporting decision-making when they incorporate a decision-aide . 6 The evidence considered in this review indicates that ICPs may be particularly effective in changing professional behaviours in the desired direction , where there is scope for improvement or where roles are new . 7 Even in context s in which health professionals are already experienced with a particular pathway , ICP use brings additional beneficial effects in directing professional practice in the desired direction . 8 ICPs may be less effective in bringing about service quality and efficiency gains in variable patient trajectories . 9 ICPs may be less effective in bringing about quality improvements in circumstances in which services are already based on best evidence and multidisciplinary working is well established . 10 Depending on their purpose , the benefits of ICPs may be greater for certain patient subgroups than others . 11 We do not know whether the costs of ICP development and implementation are justified by any of their reported benefits . 12 ICPs may need supporting mechanisms to underpin their implementation and ensure their adoption in practice , particularly in circumstances in which ICP use is a significant change in organisational culture . 13 ICP documentation can introduce scope for new kinds of error . Conclusions ICPs are most effective in context s where patient care trajectories are predictable . Their value in setting s in which recovery pathways are more variable is less clear . ICPs are most effective in bringing about behavioural changes where there are identified deficiencies in services ; their value in context s where inter-professional working is well established is less certain . None of the studies review ed included an economic evaluation and thus it is not known whether their benefits justify the costs of their implementation The guidelines for the diagnosis , surveillance and therapy of Barrett ’s esophagus were originally published by the American College of Gastroenterology in 1998 and up date d in 2002 . These and other guidelines undergo periodic review . Significant advances have occurred in the area of Barrett ’s esophagus over the past four years leading to another revision of the prior guidelines . These advances include the potential use of esophageal capsule endoscopy for the diagnosis and screening of Barrett ’s esophagus , data regarding the outcome of low- grade dysplasia , the treatment of high- grade dysplasia using photodynamic therapy , and the development of new ablation techniques such as radiofrequency ablation . These guidelines are intended to be applied by physicians who see Barrett ’s esophagus patients and are intended to indicate a preferred , but certainly not the only , acceptable approach . Physicians need to choose the course best suited to the individual patient and to the variables that exist at the time of decision making . The guidelines are for adult patients with the diagnosis of Barrett ’s esophagus , as defined herein . Both these and the original guidelines were developed under auspices of the American College of Gastroenterology and the Practice Parameters Committee and approved by the Board of Trustees . The world literature was review ed extensively for the original guidelines and once again review ed using the National Library of Medicine data base . Search terms used included Barrett ’s esophagus , esophageal neoplasm , esophagus , intestinal metaplasia , esophageal diseases , and adenocarcinoma , all appropriate studies and any additional ones found in reference to these papers were obtained and review ed . Evidence was available from a hierarchy of trials and r and omized controlled trials were given the greatest weight . Abstract s presented at national and international meetings were only used when unique data from ongoing trials were presented . When scientific data were lacking , recommendations are based on expert opinion . The recommendations made are based on the level of evidence found . Grade A recommendations imply that there is consistent level 1 evidence ( r and omized controlled trials ) , Grade B indicates that the evidence would be level 2 or 3 which are cohort studies or case control studies . Grade C recommendations are based on level 4 studies meaning case series or poor quality cohort studies , and Grade D recommendations are based on level 5 evidence meaning expert opinion
A well-implemented ERAS protocol with good compliance is associated with a reduction in medical complications and length of hospital stay .
Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) pathways are now implemented worldwide with strong evidence that adhesion to such protocol reduces medical complications , costs and hospital stay .
This concept has been applied for pancreatic surgery since the first published guidelines in 2012 .
This study presents the up date d ERAS recommendations for  pancreatoduodenectomy ( PD )  based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus .