Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37735433›Full record

ReviewPerioperative medicine (London, England)2023

Restrictive versus conventional ward fluid therapy in non-cardiac surgery patients and the effect on postoperative complications: a meta-analysis.

Joachim J Bosboom, Marije Wijnberge, Bart F Geerts, Martijn Kerstens, Michael G Mythen, Alexander P J Vlaar, Markus W Hollmann, Denise P Veelo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. PERIOPERATIVE CARE IN DIGESTIVE SURGERY: THE ERAS AND ACERTO PROTOCOLS - BRAZILIAN COLLEGE OF DIGESTIVE SURGERY POSITION PAPER.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024
    Guideline
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Joachim J BosboomDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Marije WijnbergeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bart F GeertsHealthplus.Ai-R&D B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. bfgeerts@hotmail.com.
Martijn KerstensDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Michael G MythenDepartments of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University College London Hospitals, National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Alexander P J VlaarDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Markus W HollmannDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Denise P VeeloDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLDepartment of Health · ZANational Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiligent fluid management is an instrumental part of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery. However, the effect of a ward regimen to limit intravenous fluid administration on outcome remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis investigating the effect of a restrictive versus a conventional fluid regimen on complications in patients after non-cardiac surgery in the postoperative period on the clinical ward. STUDY

designWe performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases, from the start of indexing until June 2022, with constraints for English language and adult human study participants. Data were combined using classic methods of meta-analyses and were expressed as weighted pooled risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality assessment and risk of bias analyses was performed according to PRISMA guidelines.

resultsSeven records, three randomized controlled trials, and four non-randomized studies were included with a total of 883 patients. A restrictive fluid regimen was associated with a reduction in overall complication rate in the RCTs (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; P < .03; I

conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests restrictive fluid therapy on the ward may be associated with an effect on postoperative complication rate. However, the quality of evidence was moderate to low, the sample size was small, and the data came from both RCTs and non-randomized studies.

Indexed as

Fluid therapyInfusionsIntravenousPostoperative period

Identifiers

PMID37735433
PMCPMC10514989
OpenAlexW4386927818

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.