Next Article in Journal
Individual Anthropometric, Aerobic Capacity and Demographic Characteristics as Predictors of Heat Intolerance in Military Populations
Previous Article in Journal
The Influence of Friction on Design of the Type of Bracket and Its Relation to OHRQoL in Patients Who Use Multi-Bracket Appliances: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) for Hip and Knee Replacement—Why and How It Should Be Implemented Following the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 57
Issue 2
10.3390/medicina57020172
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Pertinent Literature of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs: A Bibliometric Approach

by
Cheng Li
1,
Yang Cheng
2,
Zhao Li
1,
Donara Margaryan
1,
Carsten Perka
1 and
Andrej Trampuz
1,*
1
Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery (CMSC), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany
2
Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The Fourth Medical College of Peking University, Beijing 100035, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2021, 57(2), 172; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57020172
Submission received: 31 December 2020 / Revised: 6 February 2021 / Accepted: 9 February 2021 / Published: 17 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nursing and Allied Health Professional Focused Research on Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: The programs of enhanced recovery after surgery are the new revolution in surgical departments; however, features of this concept have not been systematically explored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)-related research using bibliometric analysis. Materials and Methods: The search strategy of ERAS programs was conducted in the Web of Science database. Bibliometric analysis was further performed by Excel and Bibliometrix software. The relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readers was assessed by linear regression analysis. Results: 8539 studies from 1994–2019 were included in the present research, with reporting studies originating from 91 countries using 18 languages. The United States (US) published the greatest number of articles. International cooperation was discovered in 82 countries, with the most cooperative country being the United Kingdom. Henrik Kehlet was found to have published the highest number of studies. The journal Anesthesia and Analgesia had the largest number of articles. Linear regression analysis presented a strong positive correlation between citations and Mendeley readers. Most research was related to gastrointestinal surgery in this field. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis shows the current status of ERAS programs from multiple perspectives, and it provides reference and guidance to scholars for further research.

1. Introduction

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a series of effective perioperative interventions under the instruction of a multidisciplinary team, thus improving the surgical patients’ experiences both psychologically and physiologically [1,2]. Compared with the traditional perspective, the ERAS pathway is the new revolution for surgery, as it significantly decreases surgical complications, hospital stay, overall medical charges, and patient discomfort [3,4,5]. ERAS has a broad prospect of perioperative application, and an increasing number of surgery-related guidelines have been published in recent years. Meanwhile, ERAS management is complex and involves multiple measures, with controversy remaining in its clinical application. Therefore, ERAS programs still need to be continually refined and optimized in practice [6,7]. To improve and guide further research, it is necessary to investigate the current developmental status and research hotspots of ERAS programs in different surgical specialties.
Scientific publication is the core of discipline development and scholarly communication, and the creation of clinical practice guidelines also depends on the strong evidence from the literature [8,9,10]. Bibliometric analysis is a method for discovering the characteristics of a research subject to understand the current status and trend through the literature, and it is commonly used in the medical field [11,12,13,14,15]. Unfortunately, as one of the hot topics in the surgical field, ERAS has not been assessed.
Citations are a significant indicator for the assessment of literature quality in bibliometric studies [16]. However, with the development of internet technology, alternative indicators have also become a promising literature measurement. Mendeley is one of the most frequently used reference management softwares for scholars that is available locally or online. Mendeley readers were recorded by the number of users who saved the publication in their Mendeley library. This is a commonly used indicator to analyze the relationship with citations in bibliometric studies [17,18,19]. Previous studies found a strong positive correlation between Mendeley readers and citations [20,21]. The investigation of the relationship between citation counts and alternative indicators could make up for the deficiency from fewer citations in the early stage and provide another means of helping scholars to assess the value of the literature. However, no literature has assessed the relationship between Mendeley readers and citations in ERAS studies.
The aim of the present study was: (1) to find the study characteristics in ERAS programs from the country, author, journal, type of surgery, and research topic applied by bibliometric analysis; (2) to identify the relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readers in ERAS-related research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Search Strategy

The online database of Web of Science was systematically searched using the following search terms: (Enhanced recovery after surgery OR Enhanced recovery program OR Enhanced recovery pathways OR Accelerated rehabilitation OR Fast track surgery).

2.2. Data Acquisition

Total records from the Web of Science were exported to plain text and Excel format. Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and Bibliometrix (University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy) softwares were used to analyze the results, which included author, document type, number of citations, country, journal quality, digital object identifier, journal impact factor, publication source, institution, abstract, keywords, article title, language, type of surgery, and publication year [22]. The data of Mendeley reader counts were identified from the official website of Mendeley using the article title or digital object identifier.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Linear regression analysis was performed using the R language (R Core Team, Newark, NJ, USA) to examine the relationship between citations and Mendeley readers and determine the correlation coefficient.

3. Results

3.1. Publication Output

A total of 8539 papers were associated with ERAS programs between 1994 and 2019. Figure 1 shows the annual number of publications and demonstrates an upward trend in recent years, with a large percentage of publications presented during 2014–2019 (4011; 46.9%). The overall publications included 7263 (85.1%) original articles, 968 (11.3%) systematic reviews, and 308 (3.6%) proceedings papers. All included studies were published in 18 languages, with most in English (8156; 95.5%), followed by 233 (2.7%) in German, and 71 (0.8%) in French (Table 1).

3.2. The Status of Global Contributions and Collaborations

Globally, 91 countries participated in the relevant research of the ERAS program (Figure 2). The United States (US) contributed the most in this field with 2717 (31.8%) papers and also had the highest total citation count (107,682). The United Kingdom (UK) ranked second (818; 9.6%) and China third (663, 7.8%) in the number of publications (Table 2).
Eighty-two countries participated in the collaboration. The UK had the largest number of cooperations with other countries (52), followed by the US (50) and The Netherlands (44). The most frequent collaborations were between the US and Canada (132), followed by the US and the UK (98), and the US and Germany (71). Table 3 shows the number of collaborations between countries, which occurred on more than 30 occasions. Approximately 71.9% (22) of collaborations were from the top 10 most contributing countries.

3.3. Author Contributions

A total of 33,762 authors contributed to ERAS-related research. The percentage of single-authored documents was 3.1% (265). In the top 10 most contributing author list, Henrik Kehlet, from the Department of Surgical Pathophysiology, had the highest number of publications (261), citations (21,497), and h-index (74). The second and third most productive authors in this field are Olle Ljungqvist and Francesco Carli (99 and 88, respectively). The top 10 most productive authors come from seven different institutions, with more than half of the authors being from European countries (Table 4). Figure 3 presented the top 10 authors’ average outputs between 1994 and 2019.

3.4. Journal Information and Type of Surgery

ERAS-related research was published in 1121 journals, and 1014 journals had an impact factor in 2019. Around 27.7% of journals (281) were ranked in the first quartile, 25.4% (258) in the second quartile, 23.9% (243) in the third quartile, and 22.8% (232) in the fourth quartile. Anesthesia and Analgesia had the greatest number of papers (358), followed by the British Journal of Anaesthesia (189), and Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (147). The rank list of the top 10 journals shows The New England Journal of Medicine has the highest impact factor (74.699), followed by Lancet (60.392), and The Journal of the American Medical Association (45.54; Table 5). Figure 4 presents the year of the journal’s first publication in ERAS, with most journals appearing in 2018 (83), followed by 2010 (76) and 2017 (73).
The surgical information was identified from 6920 papers with 11 clinical departments. Gastrointestinal surgery had the greatest number of papers with ERAS programs (2162), followed by orthopedic surgery (1740), and cardiac surgery (608). In these 11 clinical departments, most journals were from the first quartile (8; Table 6).

3.5. Citations and Mendeley Readers

Of the articles, 8104 had at least one citation. Table 7 shows the top five most cited papers in ERAS, with a range of citations between 970 and 1923 and all publications ranked in the first quartile of the medical journal. In the Mendeley database, Mendeley readers of 8079 publications could be found. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant positive correlation (Pearson r: r = 0.7008; p < 0.001) between citations and Mendeley readers.

3.6. Research Topic

The research topic was identified by thematic maps in Bibliometrix. Ninety-three author keywords occur more than 40 times and were automatically classified into five clusters. Following selection, 72 keywords were further analyzed. Cluster 2 had the largest number of keywords (26), followed by cluster 4 (23), and cluster 1 (11). Cluster 1 was the topic of ERAS programs in orthopedic surgery, with the top three most frequent keywords being “rehabilitation”, “total knee arthroplasty”, and “hip fracture”. Cluster 2 was related to the ERAS protocol in gastrointestinal surgery, with the most popular keywords “enhanced recovery after surgery”, “colorectal surgery”, and “complications”. Cluster 3 was associated with clinical nutrition in surgery, with the most frequent keywords being “surgery”, “outcome”, and “nutrition”. Cluster 4 correlated to ERAS programs of pain management, with the most commonly occurring keywords being “pain”, “postoperative”, and “analgesia”. Cluster 5 correlates with ERAS programs of cardiac surgery, with the most used keywords being “fast-track”, “cardiac surgery”, and “recovery” (Table S1, Supplementary Materials).

4. Discussion

In the present study, bibliometric analysis was used to find ERAS characteristics from multiple perspectives and further identified the relationship between citations and Mendeley readers in this area.

4.1. Principal Findings and Explanation

In this bibliometric analysis, 8539 ERAS-related studies were identified for the period 1994−2019, with the annual global publication showing significant growth since 2014. This condition might be affected by various guidelines published by the ERAS Society in recent years [1,9,10,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Eighteen languages were published in ERAS-related studies. With the exception of Korean and Japanese, other languages are typically used in European countries. English is the dominant language for academic communication, accounting for the largest proportion (95.5%).
Ninety-one countries contributed to the ERAS programs. The list of the top 10 largest contributing countries reported that 70% originated in European countries, with others from Northern America (2) and Asia (1). The US is the most influential country with the highest number of publications. Eighty-two countries were involved in international collaborations. The UK had the highest number of international collaborations (52), followed by the US (50), and The Netherlands (44). The list of the top 31 most frequent collaborations between countries shows 13 countries with more than 30 international cooperations. The most frequent collaborative countries were between the US and Canada (132). Approximately 51.6% of international collaborations were between European countries. These phenomena most likely indicate that geographical location is the potential advantage of fostering intercountry collaborations, which were closer between European countries.
The result from the top 10 most productive authors shows anesthesiologists and surgeons to be predominant in ERAS programs [45,46,47,48]. Increasing attention should be paid to the role of nurses and physiotherapists in multidisciplinary work in the future to improve patient outcomes [49,50,51]. Henrik Kehlet is the most relevant and academic influential author in ERAS. Olle Ljungqvist, the chairman of the ERAS society, ranked second. In addition, Henrik Kehlet was also the top active author in this area, contributing research papers commencing annually in 1997 (Figure 3).
Of the top 10 journals with the greatest number of publications, Anesthesia and Analgesia ranked first place. Most ERAS-related studies were published in anesthesiology journals, with more than half of the top 10 journals being anesthesia-related journals. The list of the top 10 highest impact factor journals shows that a high impact and quality medical journal was interested in the ERAS. All journals were in the first quartile, with impact factors above 20. The year of the journal’s first publication in ERAS indicated that ERAS-related research developed rapidly and popularly, with an increasing amount of new journals producing ERAS-related research, with the highest number of new journals being reached in 2018 (Figure 4). ERAS programs were identified in 11 clinical departments from 6920 papers, with 72.7% (eight) of the most relevant journals being in the first quartile. Gastrointestinal, orthopedic, and cardiac surgeries ranked as the top three most popular departments in ERAS.
Citations are a valuable indicator for assessing the quality of literature. The current study discovered the top five articles with the highest academic influence based on the number of citations. As the main disadvantage of citations could not reflect the value of the literature in the early stages, we further analyzed whether the alternative indicator (Mendeley readers) helps readers determine its academic impact. Simple linear regression analysis of 8079 papers presented a significant positive correlation between citations and Mendeley readers, with the latter being able to be potentially put to use as a reference indicator for research quality assessment in ERAS.
The hot topic was determined according to the frequency of the author’s keywords. Five research themes were identified in the present study. Cluster 1 relates to the ERAS programs in orthopedic surgery. Total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were the most often performed orthopedic surgeries in ERAS programs. Hip fracture was the most frequently occuring orthopedic disease in ERAS pathways. Functional exercise is one of the most critical components in the perioperative management of orthopedics, improving patient outcomes. Based on the guidelines of the ERAS society perioperative care on total hip replacement and total knee replacement surgery, the evidence level and recommendation grade of early mobilization were strong [32]. Cluster 2 is associated with the ERAS programs in gastrointestinal surgery. Surgeries most related to the ERAS programs were bariatric surgery, gastrectomy, colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy, with the laparoscopic instrument being the most frequently applied. Several studies supported laparoscopic use to achieve a better prognosis than open surgery, with laparoscopic use in gastrointestinal surgery appearing to be more consistent with the concept of ERAS [24,52,53,54]. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data are commonly used to assess the outcome of ERAS programs [55,56]. Gastrointestinal surgeons, who utilized ERAS programs for their patients, are more focused on readmission, morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and surgery-related intestinal obstruction. Cluster 3 was associated with clinical nutrition in surgery. Malnutrition was associated with increased postoperative complications and mortality, and effective interventions reduce the risk of complications [57,58,59]. Perioperative nutritional support is one of the most important aspects of ERAS programs. As patients with cancer were more likely to have perioperative malnutrition, ERAS programs placed increasing focus on the nutritional status in cancer patients [37,41,60,61,62]. Early oral nutrition is advocated by ERAS programs in postsurgical recovery, with some studies supporting an early oral diet to safe, feasible, and shorter hospital stays than noninterventional groups. However, whether oral nutrition can reduce postoperative complications requires further investigation [63,64,65]. Cluster 4 correlates to perioperative pain management. Multimodal analgesia is the core of pain control in ERAS programs. A combination of various analgesics and anesthesia techniques will help reduce opioid-related side effects [66]. Currently, epidural analgesia is the most frequently researched anesthesia technique in multimodal analgesia, with the most concerning adverse effects being analgesics postoperative nausea and vomiting. Cluster 5 correlates with ERAS programs in cardiac surgery. The first cardiac surgery report dates back to 1994 and was termed “fast-track recovery” to treat coronary artery bypass grafting patients [67]. The development of ERAS-related cardiac surgery matured over the years, and clinical guidelines in cardiac surgery were published by the ERAS society [31].

4.2. Implications for Research and Practices

In the present study, bibliometric analysis was used to characterize ERAS research from multiple perspectives. These findings will likely help scholars in their further investigations. First, country information could help provide the researcher with information on the current global contribution of countries, as well as providing a reference for further improve and enhance international cooperation. Second, institution lists provide value information to practitioners who want to accept advanced research training in experienced organizations. Third, author information may improve scholarly communication, as it provides a reference to participation in the ERAS meeting or manuscript review. Fourth, journal information likely aids scholars to further subscribe, trace the most related journal in the future, or submit an ERAS-related manuscript as a reference. Fifth, citations and Mendeley readers could assist scholars in quickly finding high-impact articles in the area of ERAS. Finally, the type of surgery and research topic help physicians discover the mainstream discipline, research hotspot, and inadequate research areas. Hence, it may contribute to improving variations across disciplines and provide reference direction for further studies.

4.3. Limitations

The present study has several limitations. First, only a single database was used in this study. Web of Science is the most frequently used database in bibliometric studies, and most of the bibliometric softwares could identify the format from Web of Science [68,69,70,71]. However, the drawback is that some valuable literature from other database sources are most likely missed [13]. Second, the research topic of ERAS contains multiple medical disciplines. Although we selected multiple search terms to identify more relevant research, some potential papers might still be missed. Third, conference proceedings were included in the bibliometric analysis. Therefore, identical content may exist in the literature, as results may be published as a conference abstract as well as a complete journal article [72].

5. Conclusions

In summary, our bibliometric study indicates that the overall global contribution shows an increase in ERAS-related research. The US is the most influential country, whereas the UK is the most cooperative country. Henrik Kehlet is the most relevant, academically influential and active author in this field. Anesthesiologists and surgeons were predominant in the ERAS program. The journal Anesthesia and Analgesia had the most related articles, with anesthesiology-related and high-impact medical journals being the most interested in ERAS. Mendeley readers could be used in ERAS research to assess literature quality. ERAS programs were more likely to be utilized for gastrointestinal, orthopedic, and cardiac surgeries. Pain management and perioperative nutrition were more concerned with ERAS programs.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/2/172/s1, Table S1: Research topic of ERAS.

Author Contributions

Project conceptualization: C.L.; methodology: C.L., Y.C., Z.L. and D.M.; software: C.L.; validation: C.P. and A.T.; formal analysis: C.L.; investigation: C.L.; resources: C.L., Y.C.; data curation: C.L.; writing—original draft preparation: C.L.; writing—review and editing: C.L., Y.C., Z.L., D.M., C.P. and A.T.; supervision: C.P. and A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the PRO-IMPLANT Foundation, Berlin, Germany (https://www.pro-implant-foundation.org).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not involve humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ljungqvist, O.; Scott, M.; Fearon, K.C. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: A Review. JAMA Surg. 2017, 152, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kehlet, H. Accelerated Recovery after Surgery: A Continuous Multidisciplinary Challenge. Anesthesiology 2015, 123, 1219–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Büttner, M.; Mayer, A.M.; Büchler, B.; Betz, U.; Drees, P.; Susanne, S. Economic analyses of fast-track total hip and knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2020, 30, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cao, Y.; Gu, H.-Y.; Huang, Z.-D.; Wu, Y.-P.; Zhang, Q.; Luo, J.; Zhang, C.; Fu, Y. Impact of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery on Postoperative Recovery for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Pooled Analysis of Observational Study. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Brown, J.K.; Singh, K.; Dumitru, R.; Chan, E.; Kim, M.P. The Benefits of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs and Their Application in Cardiothoracic Surgery. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc. J. 2018, 14, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Kehlet, H.; Joshi, G.P. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: Current Controversies and Concerns. Anesth. Analg. 2017, 125, 2154–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kehlet, H. Enhanced postoperative recovery: Good from afar, but far from good? Anaesthesia 2020, 75 (Suppl. S1), e54–e61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access 2020: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access. Anesthesiology 2020, 132, 8–43. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Brindle, M.E.; McDiarmid, C.; Short, K.; Miller, K.; MacRobie, A.; Lam, J.Y.K.; Brockel, M.; Raval, M.V.; Howlett, A.; Lee, K.-S.; et al. Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Neonatal Intestinal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations. World J. Surg. 2020, 44, 2482–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Batchelor, T.J.P.; Rasburn, N.J.; Abdelnour-Berchtold, E.; Brunelli, A.; Cerfolio, R.J.; Gonzalez, M.; Ljungqvist, O.; Petersen, R.H.; Popescu, W.M.; Slinger, P.D.; et al. Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: Recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS). Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2019, 55, 91–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Li, C.; Ojeda-Thies, C.; Renz, N.; Margaryan, D.; Perka, C.; Trampuz, A. The global state of clinical research and trends in periprosthetic joint infection: A bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 96, 696–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Fan, G.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, H.; Gu, X.; Gu, G.; Guan, X.; Fan, Y.; He, S. Global scientific production of robotic surgery in medicine: A 20-year survey of research activities. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 30, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Li, C.; Ojeda-Thies, C.; Xu, C.; Trampuz, A. Meta-analysis in periprosthetic joint infection: A global bibliometric analysis. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2020, 15, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Park, H.; Lee, I.-S.; Lee, H.; Chae, Y. Bibliometric Analysis of Moxibustion Research Trends over the Past 20 Years. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2020, 9, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Simopoulou, M.; Sfakianoudis, K.; Maziotis, E.; Rapani, A.; Giannelou, P.; Pantou, A.; Anifandis, G.; Bakas, P.; Vlahos, N.; Pantos, K.; et al. Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis. Medicina 2020, 56, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Loomes, D.E.; van Zanten, S.V. Bibliometrics of the top 100 clinical articles in digestive disease. Gastroenterology 2013, 144, 673–676.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Shrivastava, R.; Mahajan, P. Relationship between citation counts and Mendeley readership metrics: A case of top 100 cited papers in Physics. New Libr. World 2016, 117, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R.; Wouters, P. Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 2511–2521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Naudé, F. Comparing downloads, mendeley readership and Google scholar citations as indicators of article performance. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2017, 78, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Thelwall, M. Early Mendeley readers correlate with later citation counts. Scientometrics 2018, 115, 1231–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M. How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2018, 69, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mortensen, K.; Nilsson, M.; Slim, K.; Schäfer, M.; Mariette, C.; Braga, M.; Carli, F.; Demartines, N.; Griffin, S.M.; Lassen, K.; et al. Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2014, 101, 1209–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Thorell, A.; MacCormick, A.D.; Awad, S.; Reynolds, N.; Roulin, D.; Demartines, N.; Vignaud, M.; Alvarez, A.; Singh, P.M.; Lobo, D.N. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Bariatric Surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations. World J. Surg. 2016, 40, 2065–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Melloul, E.; Hübner, M.; Scott, M.; Snowden, C.; Prentis, J.; Dejong, C.H.C.; Garden, O.J.; Farges, O.; Kokudo, N.; Vauthey, J.-N.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations. World J. Surg. 2016, 40, 2425–2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Temple-Oberle, C.; Shea-Budgell, M.A.; Tan, M.; Semple, J.L.; Schrag, C.; Barreto, M.; Blondeel, P.; Hamming, J.; Dayan, J.; Ljungqvist, O.; et al. Consensus Review of Optimal Perioperative Care in Breast Reconstruction: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2017, 139, 1056e–1071e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hübner, M.; Kusamura, S.; Villeneuve, L.; Al-Niaimi, A.; Alyami, M.; Balonov, K.; Bell, J.; Bristow, R.; Guiral, D.C.; Fagotti, A.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations—Part II: Postoperative management and special considerations. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 46, 2311–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Melloul, E.; Lassen, K.; Roulin, D.; Grass, F.; Perinel, J.; Adham, M.; Wellge, E.B.; Kunzler, F.; Besselink, M.G.; Asbun, H.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Pancreatoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Recommendations 2019. World J. Surg. 2020, 44, 2056–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Wilson, R.D.; Caughey, A.B.; Wood, S.L.; Macones, G.A.; Wrench, I.J.; Huang, J.; Norman, M.; Pettersson, K.; Fawcett, W.J.; Shalabi, M.M.; et al. Guidelines for Antenatal and Preoperative care in Cesarean Delivery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society Recommendations (Part 1). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 219, 523.e1–523.e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Caughey, A.B.; Wood, S.L.; Macones, G.A.; Wrench, I.J.; Huang, J.; Norman, M.; Pettersson, K.; Fawcett, W.J.; Shalabi, M.M.; Metcalfe, A.; et al. Guidelines for intraoperative care in cesarean delivery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society Recommendations (Part 2). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 219, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Engelman, D.T.; Ali, W.B.; Williams, J.B.; Perrault, L.P.; Reddy, V.S.; Arora, R.C.; Roselli, E.E.; Khoynezhad, A.; Gerdisch, M.; Levy, J.H.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cardiac Surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society Recommendations. JAMA Surg. 2019, 154, 755–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Wainwright, T.W.; Gill, M.; McDonald, D.A.; Middleton, R.G.; Reed, M.; Sahota, O.; Yates, P.; Ljungqvist, O. Consensus statement for perioperative care in total hip replacement and total knee replacement surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Acta Orthop. 2020, 91, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Debono, B.; Wainwright, T.W.; Wang, M.Y.; Sigmundsson, F.G.; Yang, M.M.H.; Smid-Nanninga, H.; Bonnal, A.; Le Huec, J.-C.; Fawcett, W.J.; Ljungqvist, O.; et al. Consensus statement for perioperative care in lumbar spinal fusion: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Spine J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Nelson, G.; Bakkum-Gamez, J.; Kalogera, E.; Glaser, G.; Altman, A.; Meyer, L.A.; Taylor, J.S.; Iniesta, M.; Lasala, J.; Mena, G.; et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations-2019 update. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2019, 29, 651–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Gustafsson, U.O.; Scott, M.J.; Hubner, M.; Nygren, J.; Demartines, N.; Francis, N.; Rockall, T.A.; Young-Fadok, T.M.; Hill, A.G.; Soop, M.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 659–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Low, D.E.; Allum, W.; De Manzoni, G.; Ferri, L.; Immanuel, A.; Kuppusamy, M.; Law, S.; Lindblad, M.; Maynard, N.; Neal, J.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 299–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Dort, J.C.; Farwell, D.G.; Findlay, M.; Huber, G.F.; Kerr, P.; Shea-Budgell, M.A.; Simon, C.; Uppington, J.; Zygun, D.; Ljungqvist, O.; et al. Optimal Perioperative Care in Major Head and Neck Cancer Surgery with Free Flap Reconstruction: A Consensus Review and Recommendations From the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2017, 143, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Nygren, J.; Thacker, J.; Carli, F.; Fearon, K.C.H.; Norderval, S.; Lobo, D.N.; Ljungqvist, O.; Soop, M.; Ramirez, J. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society Guidelines for perioperative care in elective rectal/pelvic surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 31, 801–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gustafsson, U.O.; Scott, M.J.; Schwenk, W.; Demartines, N.; Roulin, D.; Francis, N.; McNaught, C.E.; MacFie, J.; Liberman, A.S.; Soop, M.; et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 31, 783–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lassen, K.; Coolsen, M.M.E.; Slim, K.; Carli, F.; de Aguilar-Nascimento, J.E.; Schäfer, M.; Parks, R.W.; Fearon, K.C.H.; Lobo, D.N.; Demartines, N.; et al. Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 31, 817–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Cerantola, Y.; Valerio, M.; Persson, B.; Jichlinski, P.; Ljungqvist, O.; Hubner, M.; Kassouf, W.; Muller, S.; Baldini, G.; Carli, F.; et al. Guidelines for perioperative care after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS(®)) society recommendations. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 32, 879–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Feldheiser, A.; Aziz, O.; Baldini, G.; Cox, B.P.B.W.; Fearon, K.C.H.; Feldman, L.S.; Gan, T.J.; Kennedy, R.H.; Ljungqvist, O.; Lobo, D.N.; et al. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 2: Consensus statement for anaesthesia practice. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2016, 60, 289–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Scott, M.J.; Baldini, G.; Fearon, K.C.H.; Feldheiser, A.; Feldman, L.S.; Gan, T.J.; Ljungqvist, O.; Lobo, D.N.; Rockall, T.A.; Schricker, T.; et al. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 1: Pathophysiological considerations. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2015, 59, 1212–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Nelson, G.; Altman, A.D.; Nick, A.; Meyer, L.A.; Ramirez, P.T.; Achtari, C.; Antrobus, J.; Huang, J.; Scott, M.; Wijk, L.; et al. Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations—Part I. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 140, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Kranke, P.; Redel, A.; Schuster, F.; Muellenbach, R.; Eberhart, L.H. Pharmacological interventions and concepts of fast-track perioperative medical care for enhanced recovery programs. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2008, 9, 1541–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. White, P.F.; Kehlet, H.; Neal, J.M.; Schricker, T.; Carr, D.B.; Carli, F. Fast-Track Surgery Study Group The role of the anesthesiologist in fast-track surgery: From multimodal analgesia to perioperative medical care. Anesth. Analg. 2007, 104, 1380–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Yost, M.T.; Jolissaint, J.S.; Fields, A.C.; Fisichella, P.M. Enhanced Recovery Pathways for Minimally Invasive Esophageal Surgery. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 2018, 28, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Pache, B.; Hübner, M.; Jurt, J.; Demartines, N.; Grass, F. Minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery: The ideal combination? J. Surg. Oncol. 2017, 116, 613–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Brady, K.M.; Keller, D.S.; Delaney, C.P. Successful Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway: The Nurse’s Role. AORN J. 2015, 102, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Boden, I.; Skinner, E.H.; Browning, L.; Reeve, J.; Anderson, L.; Hill, C.; Robertson, I.K.; Story, D.; Denehy, L. Preoperative physiotherapy for the prevention of respiratory complications after upper abdominal surgery: Pragmatic, double blinded, multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2018, 360, j5916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Li, Y.; Yan, C.; Li, J.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Qiang, W.; Qi, D. A nurse-driven enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) nursing program for geriatric patients following lung surgery. Thorac. Cancer 2020, 11, 1105–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Vlug, M.S.; Wind, J.; Hollmann, M.W.; Ubbink, D.T.; Cense, H.A.; Engel, A.F.; Gerhards, M.F.; van Wagensveld, B.A.; van der Zaag, E.S.; van Geloven, A.A.W.; et al. Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: A randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann. Surg. 2011, 254, 868–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Esteban, F.; Cerdan, F.J.; Garcia-Alonso, M.; Sanz-Lopez, R.; Arroyo, A.; Ramirez, J.M.; Moreno, C.; Morales, R.; Navarro, A.; Fuentes, M. A multicentre comparison of a fast track or conventional postoperative protocol following laparoscopic or open elective surgery for colorectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2014, 16, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Pedrazzani, C.; Conti, C.; Mantovani, G.; Fernandes, E.; Turri, G.; Lazzarini, E.; Menestrina, N.; Ruzzenente, A.; Guglielmi, A. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery and Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) program: Experience with 200 cases from a single Italian center. Medicine 2018, 97, e12137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Gresham, L.M.; Sadiq, M.; Gresham, G.; McGrath, M.; Lacelle, K.; Szeto, M.; Trickett, J.; Schramm, D.; Pearsall, E.; McKenzie, M.; et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of an enhanced recovery after surgery program using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. CJS 2019, 62, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Berian, J.R.; Ban, K.A.; Liu, J.B.; Sullivan, C.L.; Ko, C.Y.; Thacker, J.K.M.; Feldman, L.S. Association of an Enhanced Recovery Pilot with Length of Stay in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. JAMA Surg. 2018, 153, 358–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Banning, L.B.D.; Ter Beek, L.; El Moumni, M.; Visser, L.; Zeebregts, C.J.; Jager-Wittenaar, H.; Pol, R.A. Vascular Surgery Patients at Risk for Malnutrition Are at an Increased Risk of Developing Postoperative Complications. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2020, 64, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Wilson, J.M.; Boissonneault, A.R.; Schwartz, A.M.; Staley, C.A.; Schenker, M.L. Frailty and Malnutrition Are Associated with Inpatient Postoperative Complications and Mortality in Hip Fracture Patients. J. Orthop. Trauma 2019, 33, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ryan, E.; McNicholas, D.; Creavin, B.; Kelly, M.E.; Walsh, T.; Beddy, D. Sarcopenia and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2019, 25, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Bisch, S.; Nelson, G.; Altman, A. Impact of Nutrition on Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in Gynecologic Oncology. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. De Silva, F.R.M.; de Oliveira, M.G.O.A.; Souza, A.S.R.; Figueroa, J.N.; Santos, C.S. Factors associated with malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients: A croos-sectional study. Nutr. J. 2015, 14, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Pressoir, M.; Desné, S.; Berchery, D.; Rossignol, G.; Poiree, B.; Meslier, M.; Traversier, S.; Vittot, M.; Simon, M.; Gekiere, J.P.; et al. Prevalence, risk factors and clinical implications of malnutrition in French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. Br. J. Cancer 2010, 102, 966–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Tweed, T.; van Eijden, Y.; Tegels, J.; Brenkman, H.; Ruurda, J.; van Hillegersberg, R.; Sosef, M.; Stoot, J. Safety and efficacy of early oral feeding for enhanced recovery following gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 28, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Berkelmans, G.H.K.; Fransen, L.F.C.; Dolmans-Zwartjes, A.C.P.; Kouwenhoven, E.A.; van Det, M.J.; Nilsson, M.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; Luyer, M.D.P. Direct Oral Feeding Following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (NUTRIENT II trial): An International, Multicenter, Open-label Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann. Surg. 2020, 271, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Herbert, G.; Perry, R.; Andersen, H.K.; Atkinson, C.; Penfold, C.; Lewis, S.J.; Ness, A.R.; Thomas, S. Early enteral nutrition within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal surgery versus later commencement for length of hospital stay and postoperative complications. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 7, CD004080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Simpson, J.C.; Bao, X.; Agarwala, A. Pain Management in Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Protocols. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 2019, 32, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Engelman, R.M.; Rousou, J.A.; Flack, J.E., III; Deaton, D.W.; Humphrey, C.B.; Ellison, L.H.; Allmendinger, P.D.; Owen, S.G.; Pekow, P.S. Fast-track recovery of the coronary bypass patient. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1994, 58, 1742–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Aggarwal, A.; Lewison, G.; Idir, S.; Peters, M.; Aldige, C.; Boerckel, W.; Boyle, P.; Trimble, E.L.; Roe, P.; Sethi, T.; et al. The State of Lung Cancer Research: A Global Analysis. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2016, 11, 1040–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Jones, R.; Hughes, T.; Lawson, K.; DeSilva, G. Citation analysis of the 100 most common articles regarding distal radius fractures. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2017, 8, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Goerlandt, F.; Li, J.; Reniers, G. The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ke, L.; Lu, C.; Shen, R.; Lu, T.; Ma, B.; Hua, Y. Knowledge Mapping of Drug-Induced Liver Injury: A Scientometric Investigation (2010–2019). Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Sweileh, W.M.; Al-Jabi, S.W.; AbuTaha, A.S.; Zyoud, S.H.; Anayah, F.M.A.; Sawalha, A.F. Bibliometric analysis of worldwide scientific literature in mobile-health: 2006–2016. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2017, 17, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Medicina 57 00172 g001 550
Figure 1. Annual output between 1994 and 2019.
Figure 1. Annual output between 1994 and 2019.
Medicina 57 00172 g001
Medicina 57 00172 g002 550
Figure 2. Global distribution of Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)-relevant studies.
Figure 2. Global distribution of Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)-relevant studies.
Medicina 57 00172 g002
Medicina 57 00172 g003 550
Figure 3. Top 10 authors’ productions over time.
Figure 3. Top 10 authors’ productions over time.
Medicina 57 00172 g003
Medicina 57 00172 g004 550
Figure 4. Year of first publication from the journals.
Figure 4. Year of first publication from the journals.
Medicina 57 00172 g004
Table
Table 1. Language distribution of publications.
Table 1. Language distribution of publications.
LanguagesRecords
English8156
German233
French71
Spanish38
Portuguese11
Korean6
Turkish6
Czech3
Romanian3
Hungarian2
Lithuanian2
Serbian2
Icelandic1
Italian1
Japanese1
Polish1
Russian1
Slovene1
Table
Table 2. Top 10 largest contributing countries in ERAS.
Table 2. Top 10 largest contributing countries in ERAS.
CountriesRecordsh-IndexSum of Times CitedAverage Citations per Item
US2717146107,68239.59
UK81810141,17750.22
China6635110,43116.15
Germany6267625,57440.79
Canada5998729,74049.57
Denmark4778931,09265.05
Italy4326520,22546.71
The Netherlands3607121,89860.66
Sweden3577621,61960.39
France3355712,79238.19
Table
Table 3. Top 31 most frequent collaborating countries.
Table 3. Top 31 most frequent collaborating countries.
FromToFrequency
USCanada132
USUK98
USGermany71
UKCanada66
UKSweden62
UKGermany58
USChina57
USItaly57
The NetherlandsUK55
USSwitzerland53
UKItaly50
ItalyGermany49
UKSwitzerland47
The NetherlandsGermany42
SwedenCanada42
SwitzerlandGermany41
USSweden41
UKAustralia39
USThe Netherlands39
USDenmark37
SwitzerlandFrance36
UKNorway36
UKFrance35
USFrance34
SwedenSwitzerland33
The NetherlandsItaly32
USAustralia32
CanadaGermany31
FranceGermany31
ItalySwitzerland31
UKDenmark31
Table
Table 4. Top 10 authors with the greatest number of publications in ERAS.
Table 4. Top 10 authors with the greatest number of publications in ERAS.
AuthorsArticlesSum of Times Citedh-IndexSpecialized SubjectInstitutionCountry
Kehlet, H.26121,49774Surgical PathophysiologyCopenhagen Univ HospDenmark
Ljungqvist, O.9911,87752Department of SurgeryOrebro UniversitySweden
Carli, F.88560741Department of AnesthesiologyMcGill UniversityCanada
Demartines, N.81441327Department of Visceral SurgeryCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisSwitzerland
Hubner, M.63234623Department of Visceral SurgeryCentre Hospitalier Universitaire VaudoisSwitzerland
Gan, T.J.57449433Department of AnesthesiologyStony Brook UniversityUS
Husted, H.57271729Department of Orthopedic SurgeryCopenhagen Univ HospDenmark
White, P.F.55295232Department of AnesthesiologyCedars Sinai Medical CenterUS
Feldman, L.S.52204523Department of SurgeryMcGill UniversityCanada
Lobo, D.N.48607830Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryUniversity of NottinghamUK
Table
Table 5. Top 10 journals ranked by the number of publications and impact factor, respectively.
Table 5. Top 10 journals ranked by the number of publications and impact factor, respectively.
SourceJournal Impact FactorJournal QuartileNumber of PublicationsTotal Citationsh-Index
Anesthesia and Analgesia4.305Q135821,49479
British Journal of Anaesthesia6.880Q118914,38665
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2.050Q3147506040
Surgical Endoscopy3.149Q1147421337
Anesthesiology7.067Q113512,69765
World Journal of Surgery2.234Q2128481736
European Journal of Anaesthesiology4.500Q1127356429
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia2.258Q3125310131
Annals of Surgery10.130Q111711,92859
Colorectal Disease2.769Q2111332832
The New England Journal of Medicine74.699Q128392
Lancet60.392Q110511810
The Journal of the American Medical Association45.540Q1826378
Lancet Oncology33.752Q122672
Journal of Clinical Oncology32.956Q132893
British Medical Journal30.223Q1814518
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology and Hepatology29.848Q12662
Lancet Infectious Diseases24.446Q11241
Circulation23.603Q177647
European Heart Journal22.673Q132223
Table
Table 6. Type of surgery and most relevant journals.
Table 6. Type of surgery and most relevant journals.
SubjectArticlesJournal TitleArticlesImpact FactorJournal Quartile
Gastrointestinal surgery2162Surgical Endoscopy1103.149Q1
Orthopedic surgery1740Journal of Arthroplasty853.709Q1
Cardiac surgery608Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia992.258Q3
Thoracic surgery462Journal of Thoracic Disease552.046Q3
Head and neck surgery438Anesthesia and Analgesia224.305Q1
Obstetrics and gynecology surgery419Anesthesia and Analgesia404.305Q1
Urologic surgery385Urology351.924Q3
Hepatobiliary surgery359Surgical Endoscopy253.149Q1
Pancreatic surgery180HPB183.401Q1
Breast surgery143Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery224.209Q1
Vascular surgery24Journal of Vascular Surgery33.405Q1
Table
Table 7. Top 5 highest number of citations publication in ERAS.
Table 7. Top 5 highest number of citations publication in ERAS.
First AuthorArticle TitleSource TitleTimes CitedPublication Year
Kehlet, H.Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and preventionLancet19232006
Kehlet, H.Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitationBritish Journal of Anaesthesia11211997
Heran, B.S.Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart diseaseCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews11052011
Falck-Ytter, Y.Prevention of VTE in Orthopedic Surgery Patients Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice GuidelinesChest9702012
Brandstrup, B.Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: Comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens—A randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trialAnnals of Surgery9702003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, C.; Cheng, Y.; Li, Z.; Margaryan, D.; Perka, C.; Trampuz, A. The Pertinent Literature of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs: A Bibliometric Approach. Medicina 2021, 57, 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57020172

AMA Style

Li C, Cheng Y, Li Z, Margaryan D, Perka C, Trampuz A. The Pertinent Literature of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs: A Bibliometric Approach. Medicina. 2021; 57(2):172. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57020172

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Cheng, Yang Cheng, Zhao Li, Donara Margaryan, Carsten Perka, and Andrej Trampuz. 2021. "The Pertinent Literature of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs: A Bibliometric Approach" Medicina 57, no. 2: 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57020172

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop