Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30559961›Full record

ReviewPerioperative medicine (London, England)2018

Perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid intravenous fluid to improve outcomes following adult surgical procedures: a Cochrane systematic review.

Peter M Odor, Sohail Bampoe, Ahilanandan Dushianthan, Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, Suzie Cro, Tong J Gan, Michael P W Grocott, Michael F M James, Michael G Mythen, Catherine M N O'Malley and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Fluid management in patients undergoing neurosurgery.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2021
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Peter M Odor1Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University College London, Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT UK.
Sohail Bampoe2Centre for Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Ahilanandan Dushianthan3General Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Elliott Bennett-Guerrero4Department of Anesthesiology, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY USA.
Suzie Cro5Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK.
Tong J Gan4Department of Anesthesiology, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY USA.
Michael P W Grocott6Critical Care Group, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Michael F M James7Department of Anaesthesia, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Michael G Mythen1Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University College London, Gower St, London, WC1E 6BT UK.
Catherine M N O'Malley8Department of Anaesthesia, St James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Anthony M Roche9Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.
Kathy Rowan10Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK.
Edward Burdett11Department of Anaesthesia, UCL Centre for Anaesthesia, London, UK.
University College London · GBStony Brook Medicine · USIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre · GBMedical Research Council · GBSt. James's Hospital · IEUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cape Town · ZAUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBuffered intravenous fluid preparations contain substrates to maintain acid-base status. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effects of buffered and non-buffered fluids administered during the perioperative period on clinical and biochemical outcomes.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library until May 2017 and included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated buffered versus non-buffered fluids, whether crystalloid or colloid, administered to surgical patients. We assessed the selected studies for risk of bias and graded the level of evidence in accordance with Cochrane recommendations.

resultsWe identified 19 publications of 18 randomised controlled trials, totalling 1096 participants. Mean difference (MD) in postoperative pH was 0.05 units lower immediately following surgery in the non-buffered group (12 studies of 720 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.07;

conclusionsSmall effect sizes for biochemical outcomes and lack of correlated clinical follow-up data mean that robust conclusions on major morbidity and mortality associated with buffered versus non-buffered perioperative fluid choices are still lacking. Buffered fluid may have biochemical benefits, including a significant reduction in postoperative hyperchloraemia and metabolic acidosis.

Indexed as

Fluid therapyPlasma substitutesSurgery

Identifiers

PMID30559961
PMCPMC6291967
OpenAlexW2898792618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.