SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010
Intravenous fluids for abdominal aortic surgery.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Controlled hypotension versus normotensive resuscitation strategy for people with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Hypertension during transfer is associated with poor outcomes in unstable patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.Journal of vascular surgery · 2024Article
- Bio-electrical impedance analysis for perioperative fluid evaluation in open major abdominal surgery.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Observational
- Guidelines on multidisciplinary approaches for the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (2020 edition).Burns & trauma · 2020Article
- [Summary of the S3 guideline on abdominal aortic aneurysm from an anesthesiological perspective].Der Anaesthesist · 2020Review
- Does the choice of intraoperative fluid modify abdominal aneurysm repair outcomes?: A cohort analysis.Medicine · 2019Article
- Systematic analysis of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) reviews: proliferation of low-quality reviews overwhelms the results of well-performed meta-analyses.Intensive care medicine · 2012Review
- Consensus statement of the ESICM task force on colloid volume therapy in critically ill patients.Intensive care medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurgery on the abdominal aorta to treat aneurysms or occlusive disease is a major undertaking which requires intensive physiological support and fluid management. Blood products are often used but the main fluid replacement is with crystalloids or colloids. For years there has been controversy over which fluid is optimal and a number of studies have examined the subject. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2002.
objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of different non-blood replacement fluids used in abdominal aorta procedures with a view to identifying the optimal fluid for use. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (August 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3) for publications describing randomised controlled trials of non-blood replacement fluids in abdominal aortic surgery. In addition, the reference lists from retrieved trials were screened for further information about trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of at least one specific non-blood fluid used for replacement therapy in operations on, and confined to, the abdominal aorta. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted and then entered into the Review Manager software where statistical analyses were performed. MAIN
resultsThirty-eight trials involving 1589 patients were included. Patients undergoing aortic surgery had various physiological parameters measured before and after their operation (these were cardiac, respiratory, haematological, and biochemical). Patients were randomised to a fluid type. This review demonstrated that no single fluid affects any outcome measure significantly more than another fluid across a range of outcomes. The death rate in these studies was 2.45% (39 patients). AUTHORS'
conclusionsDespite the confirmed beneficial effects of colloids in this review, further studies are still required. There are no studies examining the effects of combination fluid therapy. The primary research outcome was death, for which results were limited; therefore, future studies should pay more attention to short-term outcomes such as minimising the need for allogenic blood transfusion, complications (organ failure), and length of stay in both the intensive care unit and hospital.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.