Meta-analysis of the effect of goal-directed therapy on bowel function after abdominal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative goal-directed therapy (GDT) was introduced to titrate intravenous fluids, with or without inotropic drugs, based on objective measures of hypovolaemia and cardiac output measurements to improve organ perfusion. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of GDT on the recovery of bowel function after abdominal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PubMed databases were searched for randomized clinical trials and cohort studies, from January 1989 to June 2013, that compared patients who did, or did not, receive intraoperative GDT, and reported outcomes on the recovery of bowel function. Time to first flatus and first bowel motion, time to tolerate oral diet, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and primary postoperative ileus were included. RESULTS: Thirteen trials with 1399 patients were included in the analysis. GDT shortened the time to the first bowel motion (weighted mean difference (WMD -0·67, 95 per cent c.i. -1·23 to -0·11; P = 0·020) and time to tolerate oral intake (WMD -0·95, -1·81 to -0·10; P = 0·030), and reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (risk difference -0·15, -0·26 to -0·03; P = 0·010). When only high-quality studies were included, GDT reduced only the time to tolerate oral intake (WMD -1·18, -2·03 to -0·33; P = 0·006). GDT was more effective outside enhanced recovery programmes and in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. CONCLUSION: GDT facilitated the recovery of bowel function, particularly in patients not treated within enhanced recovery programmes and in those undergoing colorectal operations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".