Meta-analysis of the effect of goal-directed therapy on bowel function after abdominal surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it