ReviewCureus2026
Comparison of Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy and Conventional Fluid Therapy in Elective Major Abdominal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has emerged as an important perioperative strategy aimed at optimizing hemodynamic status and improving surgical outcomes; however, evidence regarding its effectiveness in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery remains variable. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of intraoperative GDFT compared with conventional fluid therapy on postoperative morbidity and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. Randomized controlled trials comparing GDFT with conventional intraoperative fluid therapy were analyzed. The assessed outcomes included postoperative morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, recovery of gastrointestinal function, and incidence of paralytic ileus. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials involving approximately 2,750 patients were included, with 1,433 patients receiving GDFT and 1,317 receiving conventional fluid therapy. GDFT was associated with a significant reduction in hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) 2.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.5 to -0.5), earlier passage of flatus (MD 6.8 hours, 95% CI 11.2 to -2.4), earlier tolerance of oral intake (MD 15.2 hours, 95% CI 26.8 to -3.6), and reduced incidence of postoperative ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.28-0.82). However, no significant reduction was observed in overall postoperative morbidity (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57-1.07) or mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.45-2.34). Intraoperative GDFT in elective major abdominal surgery was associated with improved postoperative gastrointestinal recovery, reduced incidence of postoperative ileus, and shorter hospital length of stay compared with conventional fluid therapy. However, no significant reduction in overall postoperative morbidity or mortality was observed. These findings support the use of GDFT as a safe and effective perioperative strategy to enhance postoperative recovery in major abdominal surgery.
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.