ArticleCureus2020
Surgical Fluid Prescribing: When Are the Last Orders?
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of work patterns of junior medical officer tasks in hospital out of hours.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of intravenous fluid prescriptions in hospitalised patients: a point prevalence study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Inappropriate fluid prescriptions result in excess morbidity and mortality in surgical patients. The majority of prescriptions are done by foundation year one doctors (FY1s) despite repeated evidence of poor knowledge and prescription habits among them when it comes to prescribing fluids. Materials and methods This was a retrospective observational study conducted at a 798-bed district general teaching hospital. Data for one year from an out-of-hours (OOHs) electronic task record system was extracted. An analysis was performed on all surgical 'Fluid Reviews' jobs recorded in the period from August 1, 2018, to August 7, 2019. Results During the 371-day study period, 1,283 requests for fluid reviews were made. Of these, 1,228 (95.7%) were assigned to the FY1 and 1,185 (92.3%) were requested by nurses. There was a mean of 3.5 ±2.1 requests per day. A bimodal distribution of requests was noted with peaks at 1900 and 2400. There was no discernible variation between different days of the week. Conclusion Fluid reviews were most frequently requested by nursing staff at times that coincide with their handover and the commencement of a new fluid chart at midnight. Reducing the number of inappropriate requests for fluid reviews may reduce the opportunity for inappropriate fluid prescribing. Improvements could be achieved through interventions in the ward rounds and by encouraging a multidisciplinary approach to education on fluid prescribing. Reducing the number of fluid prescriptions OOHs promotes continuity of care and education through patient follow-ups.
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.