Evidence map analysis of the application of enhanced recovery after surgery in the perioperative period of head and neck cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn211501-20240619-01606
- VernacularTitle:加速康复外科理念在头颈癌围手术期中应用的证据图分析
- Author:
Yajie LI
1
;
Mingyue LUO
;
Shumeng ZHANG
;
Xinyu DUAN
;
Yongxia DING
Author Information
1. 山西医科大学护理学院，太原 030001
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Head and neck neoplasms;
Perioperative period;
Enhanced recovery after surgery;
Evidence map
- From:
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing
2025;41(6):417-427
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To comprehensively identify, describe and evaluate the research evidence on the application of ERAS in perioperative head and neck cancer by using the method of evidence mapping, so as to understand the research status and provide reference for clinical practice and future research in this field.Methods:Adopting an evidence-integrated research approach, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were searched by computer. In addition, relevant references and grey literature databases such as OpenGrey were manually searched until August 25, 2024, to screen and summarize the included literature, and different quality evaluation tools were used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The present research situation was presented with text and graphs.Results:A total of 105 articles were included, including 101 original studies and 4 systematic reviews/Meta-analyses. The number of published literature showed an increasing trend over time, but it fluctuated in a zigzag pattern. The most published studies were in China, and the study population was mainly patients with laryngeal and oral cancer, with a sample size of 51-100 cases. The results of methodology quality evaluation showed that the quality of most studies was relatively low. The intervention measures mainly involved 9 subjects, such as pre-rehabilitation, nutritional support, prevention of nausea and vomiting, and the outcome indicators involved 2 aspects related to patients and hospital. More attention was paid to outcome indicators such as complication rate and length of stay, while less attention was paid to outcome indicators such as condition of sputum and survival time. Most outcome effects were shown to be "beneficial", but some outcome effects were still controversial.Conclusions:ERAS has generally shown positive effects in perioperative application of head and neck cancer, but the quality of most studies is low. More high-quality clinical studies are needed in the future to provide more sufficient evidence for the application of ERAS in this field.
