Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39139348›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Comparative Analysis of the Modified Aldrete Score and Fast-Track Criteria for Post-general Anaesthesia Recovery: A Narrative Review.

Janhavi S Dahake, Neeta Verma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. 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

2 authors.

Janhavi S DahakeAnesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Neeta VermaAnesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are two commonly used scoring systems to evaluate recovery from general anaesthesia (GA): the Modified Aldrete Score (MAS) and the Fast-Track Criteria (FTC). Recently, concerns have been expressed about the safety and effectiveness of the Aldrete scoring system due to its exclusion of an assessment for pain or nausea, which can exacerbate recovery from surgery and anaesthesia and cause many patients to experience these side effects. FTC was created to evaluate post-operative nausea vomiting, and pain in order to assess recovery from GA. More data are needed to compare these scoring criteria in low-income countries like India. Understanding how these scores can be effectively utilised in our settings is crucial for ensuring the timely transfer of patients from the operating theatre to the Post-anaesthesia Care Unit and, subsequently, to the ward. This review aims to evaluate the available literature on MAS and FTC and compare their effectiveness. It was found that FTC is more appropriate for outpatient or day surgery procedures where rapid throughput and patient comfort are a priority. MAS, in itself, is very good for a low-income country like India. However, the addition of FTC can only enhance patient care if resources are made available. MAS can ensure consistency and efficiency in the discharge process, while using FTC can address broader recovery-related indicators and improve patient care. More research and modifications are further necessary.

Indexed as

anaesthesiafast track criteriamodified aldrete scorepost-operative nausea and vomiting (ponv)post-operative recovery

Identifiers

PMID39139348
PMCPMC11319724

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.