ArticleBMC anesthesiology2013
Goal-directed fluid therapy- a survey of anaesthetists in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The effects of goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic parameters on post-surgical outcome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Critical care (London, England) · 2014Pooled it
- Evaluation of hemodynamic goal-directed therapy to reduce the incidence of bone cement implantation syndrome in patients undergoing cemented hip arthroplasty - a randomized parallel-arm trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2018Trial
- Fluid management guided by a continuous non-invasive arterial pressure device is associated with decreased postoperative morbidity after total knee and hip replacement.BMC anesthesiology · 2015Trial
- Liberal or restricted fluid administration: are we ready for a proposal of a restricted intraoperative approach?BMC anesthesiology · 2014Trial
- Current Commonly Used Dynamic Parameters and Monitoring Systems for Perioperative Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy: A Review.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2023Review
- PERioperative Fluid Management in Elective ColecTomy (PERFECT)-a national prospective cohort study.Irish journal of medical science · 2019Article
- Applicability of pulse pressure variation: how many shades of grey?Critical care (London, England) · 2015Article
- Fluid Therapy: Double-Edged Sword during Critical Care?BioMed research international · 2015Review
- Variation in haemodynamic monitoring for major surgery in European nations: secondary analysis of the EuSOS dataset.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2015Article
- Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Critically Ill Patient - Current Status and Perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2015Review
- Long live dynamic parameters!Critical care (London, England) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGoal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has been shown to reduce complications and hospital length of stay following major surgery. However, there has been no assessment regarding its use in clinical practice.
methodsAn electronic survey was administered to randomly selected anaesthetists from the United Kingdom (UK, n = 2000) and the United States of America (USA, n = 2000), and 500 anaesthetists from Australia/New Zealand (AUS/NZ). Preferences, clinical use and attitudes towards GDFT were investigated. Results were collated to examine regional differences.
resultsThe response rates from the UK (n = 708) and AUS/NZ (n = 180) were 35%, and 36% respectively. The response rate from the USA was very low (n = 178; 9%). GDFT use was significantly more common in the UK than in AUS/NZ (p < 0.01). The Oesophageal Doppler Monitor was the most preferred instrument in the UK (n = 362; h76%) with no clear preferences in other regions. GDFT was most commonly utilised in major abdominal surgery and for patients with significant comorbidities. The commonest reasons stated for not using GDFT were either lack of availability of monitoring tools (AUS/NZ: 57 (70%); UK: 94 (64%)) or a lack of experience with instruments (AUS/NZ: 43 (53%); UK: 51 (35%)). A subset of respondents (AUS/NZ: 22(27%); UK: 45 (30%)) felt GDFT provided no perceived benefit. Enthusiasm towards the use of GDFT in the absence of existing barriers was high.
conclusionSeveral hypotheses were generated regarding important differences in the use of GDFT between anaesthetists from the UK and AUS/NZ. There is significant interest in utilising GDFT in clinical practice and existing barriers should be addressed.
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.