Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39081909›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2024

Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in adult patients undergoing craniotomies under general anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Kiran Jangra, Aravind P Gandhi, Nitasha Mishra, Muhammad Aaqib Shamim, Bijaya K Padhi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Automated tools in systematic reviews: Current trends.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors.

Kiran JangraDivision of Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6932-8272
Aravind P GandhiDepartment of Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3898-5450
Nitasha MishraDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3558-2755
Muhammad Aaqib ShamimDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3418-8171
Bijaya K PadhiDepartment of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2828-2375

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has conflicting evidence regarding outcomes in neurosurgical patients. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of GDFT and conventional fluid therapy on various perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Cochrane and preprint servers. The search was conducted up until 16 October 2023, following PROSPERO registration. The search strategy included terms related to GDFT, neurosurgery and perioperative outcomes. Only randomised controlled trials involving adult humans and comparing GDFT with standard/liberal/traditional/restricted fluid therapy were included. The studies were evaluated for risk of bias (RoB), and pooled estimates of the outcomes were measured in terms of risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). Results: No statistically significant difference was observed in neurological outcomes between GDFT and conventional fluid therapy [RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was 1.10 (0.69, 1.75), two studies, 90 patients, low certainty of evidence using GRADEpro]. GDFT reduced postoperative complications [RR = 0.67 (0.54, 0.82), six studies, 392 participants] and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay [MD (95% CI) were -1.65 (-3.02, -0.28) and -0.94 (-1.47, -0.42), respectively] with high certainty of evidence. The pulmonary complications were significantly lower in the GDFT group [RR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.38, 0.79), seven studies, 442 patients, high certainty of evidence]. Other outcomes, including total intraoperative fluids administered and blood loss, were comparable in GDFT and conventional therapy groups [MD (95% CI) were -303.87 (-912.56, 304.82) and -14.79 (-49.05, 19.46), respectively]. Conclusion: The perioperative GDFT did not influence the neurological outcome. The postoperative complications and hospital and ICU stay were significantly reduced in the GDFT group.

Indexed as

Craniotomyfluid therapygoal-directedmeta-analysisneurological outcomesneurosurgery

Identifiers

PMID39081909
PMCPMC11285882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.