SynthesisBMJ open quality2023
Quality of fluid balance charting and interventions to improve it: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Hydration Care After Stroke: A Systematic Review of International Clinical Practice Guidelines.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- The Influence of Social Determinants of Health, Environmental, and Healthcare Resources on Life Expectancy in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Countries: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- The Association Between Postoperative Fluid Balance and Postoperative Complications in Adults Undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery: Protocol for a Scoping Review.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Nurses' Knowledge of Insensible Water Loss and the Evolution of a Digital Decision-Support Tool for Personalized Fluid Balance Assessment: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Generating evidence using electronic alerts during routine care: a fully automated randomized controlled trial of oral fluid restriction in acute heart failure (THIRST alert trial).European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Divergence Between Net Fluid and Weight-Based Evaluation in Calculating Cumulative Fluid Balance.Critical care explorations · 2026Observational
- Inconsistency in Fluid Balance Calculations in UK Paediatric Intensive Care Units: A Short Research Report.Nursing in critical care · 2026Article
- Automated CT segmentation of kidneys successfully quantifies changes in total kidney volume in ICU patients, a retrospective cohort study.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Barriers and opportunities to improve fluid balance recognition and reduction: a qualitative study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Intravenous fluid mismanagement: time for national stewardship and quality improvement.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Understanding Nursing Staff Perspectives on Fluid Balance Charting: A Nordic Focus Group Study.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2025Article
- Divergence Between Net Fluid and Weight-Based Evaluation in Calculating Cumulative Fluid Balance.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Clinical Assessment of Fluid Status in Adults With Acute Kidney Injury: A Scoping Review.Journal of renal care · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a real-life experience with a digital fluid balance monitoring technology.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Article
- Digitizing fluid balance monitoring may offer a solution for optimizing patient care.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFluid balance monitoring is pivotal to patients' health. Thus, fluid balance charting is an essential part of clinical nursing documentation. This systematic review aimed to investigate and describe the quality of fluid balance monitoring in medical, surgical and intensive care units, with an emphasis on the completeness of charting data, calculation errors and accuracy, and to evaluate methods used to improve fluid balance charting. MATERIALS AND
methodsQuantitative studies involving adult patients and reporting data on fluid balance monitoring were included in the review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using tools developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute.
resultsWe included a total of 23 studies, which involved 6649 participants. The studies were quasi-experimental, cohort or prevalence studies, and every third study was of low quality. Definitions of 'completeness' varied, as well as patient categories and time of evaluation. Eighteen studies reported the prevalence of patients with complete fluid balance charts; of those, 10 reported that not more than 50% of fluid balance charts were complete. Studies addressing calculation errors found them in 25%-35% of charts, including omissions of, for example, intravenous medications. The reported interventions consisted of various components such as policies, education, equipment, visual aids, surveillance and dissemination of results. Among studies evaluating interventions, only 38% (5 of 13) achieved compliance with at least 75% of complete fluid balance charts. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, a meta-analysis was not possible.
conclusionThe quality of fluid balance charting is inadequate in most studies, and calculation errors influence quality. Interventions included several components, and the impact on the completion of fluid balance charts varied.
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.