<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>45(4)</volume><submitter>Pache B</submitter><funding>Université de Lausanne</funding><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have considerably improved postoperative outcomes and are in use for various types of surgery. The prospective audit system (EIAS) could be a powerful tool for large-scale outcome research but its database has not been validated yet.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Swiss ERAS centers were invited to contribute to the validation of the Swiss chapter for colorectal surgery. A monitoring team performed on-site visits by the use of a standardized checklist. Validation criteria were (I) coverage (No. of operated patients within ERAS protocol; target threshold for validation: ≥ 80%), (II) missing data (8 predefined variables; target ≤ 10%), and (III) accuracy (2 predefined variables, target ≥ 80%). These criteria were assessed by comparing EIAS entries with the medical charts of a random sample of patients per center (range 15-20).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Out of 18 Swiss ERAS centers, 15 agreed to have onsite monitoring but 13 granted access to the final dataset. ERAS coverage was available in only 7 centers and varied between 76 and 100%. Overall missing data rate was 5.7% and concerned mainly the variables "urinary catheter removal" (16.4%) and "mobilization on day 1" (16%). Accuracy for the length of hospital stay and complications was overall 84.6%. Overall, 5 over 13 centers failed in the validation process for one or several criteria.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>EIAS was validated in most Swiss ERAS centers. Potential patient selection and missing data remain sources of bias in non-validated centers. Therefore, simplified validation of other centers appears to be mandatory before large-scale use of the EIAS dataset.</pubmed_abstract><journal>World journal of surgery</journal><pagination>940-945</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7921022</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Swiss Validation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Database.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC7921022</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Addor V</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hubner M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Demartines N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Martin D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Pache B</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Swiss Validation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Database.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have considerably improved postoperative outcomes and are in use for various types of surgery. The prospective audit system (EIAS) could be a powerful tool for large-scale outcome research but its database has not been validated yet.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Swiss ERAS centers were invited to contribute to the validation of the Swiss chapter for colorectal surgery. A monitoring team performed on-site visits by the use of a standardized checklist. Validation criteria were (I) coverage (No. of operated patients within ERAS protocol; target threshold for validation: ≥ 80%), (II) missing data (8 predefined variables; target ≤ 10%), and (III) accuracy (2 predefined variables, target ≥ 80%). These criteria were assessed by comparing EIAS entries with the medical charts of a random sample of patients per center (range 15-20).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Out of 18 Swiss ERAS centers, 15 agreed to have onsite monitoring but 13 granted access to the final dataset. ERAS coverage was available in only 7 centers and varied between 76 and 100%. Overall missing data rate was 5.7% and concerned mainly the variables "urinary catheter removal" (16.4%) and "mobilization on day 1" (16%). Accuracy for the length of hospital stay and complications was overall 84.6%. Overall, 5 over 13 centers failed in the validation process for one or several criteria.&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>EIAS was validated in most Swiss ERAS centers. Potential patient selection and missing data remain sources of bias in non-validated centers. Therefore, simplified validation of other centers appears to be mandatory before large-scale use of the EIAS dataset.</description><dates><release>2021-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2021 Apr</publication><modification>2025-04-21T16:58:23.714Z</modification><creation>2025-04-21T16:58:23.714Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC7921022</accession><cross_references><pubmed>33486583</pubmed><doi>10.1007/s00268-020-05926-z</doi></cross_references></HashMap>