MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hypertonic saline for peri-operative fluid management

2010· review· en· W1582029132 on OpenAlexaff
Vivian C. McAlister, Karen E. A. Burns, Tammy Znajda, Brian Church

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsLakeshore General HospitalCanadian Armed ForcesWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryOdds ratioConfidence intervalHyponatremiaBlindingRandomized controlled trialPerioperativeRelative riskAdverse effectAnesthesiaRenal functionHypertonic salineIsotonic SolutionsMeta-analysisIntravascular volume statusInternal medicineTonicityHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fluid excess may place patients undergoing surgery at risk for various complications. Hypertonic saline (HS) maintains intravascular volume with less intravenous fluid than isotonic salt (IS) solutions, but may increase serum sodium. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of HS versus IS solutions administered to patients undergoing surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library) Issue 1, 2009; MEDLINE (1966 to 2009); EMBASE (1980 to 2009); LILACS (to August 2009) and CINAHL (1982 to 2009) without language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials where HS was compared to IS in patients undergoing surgery, irrespective of blinding, language, and publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the impact of HS administration on mortality, organ failure, fluid balance, serum sodium, serum osmolarity, diuresis and physiologic measures of cardiovascular function. We pooled data using odds ratio or mean difference (MD) for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively, using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies with 614 participants. One death in each group and no other serious adverse events were reported. While all patients were in a positive fluid balance postoperatively, the excess was significantly less in HS patients (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.43L, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 2.1 L less; P < 0.00001). Patients treated with HS received significantly less fluid than IS-treated patients (MD -2.4L 95% (CI) 1.5 to 3.2 L less; P < 0.00001) without differences in diuresis between the groups. Maximum intraoperative cardiac index was significantly increased with HS (SMD 0.6 L/min/M2 higher, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.0, P = 0.02) but Intraoperative pulmonary artery wedge pressure remained unchanged. While the maximum serum sodium and the serum sodium at the end of the study were significantly higher in HS patients, the level remained within normal limits (136 to 146 meq/L). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HS reduces the volume of intravenous fluid required to maintain patients undergoing surgery but transiently increases serum sodium. It is not known if HS effects patient survival and morbidity but it should be tested in randomized clinical trials that are designed and powered to test these outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207