MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744998548 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000002362

The Subtleties of Language as a Reason for Failure to Follow Preoperative Fasting Guidelines: The Differences Between Restricting, Allowing, and Encouraging

2017· letter· en· W2744998548 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hilary P. Grocott, Charles S. Brudney

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativePreoperative fastingMeaning (existential)SurgeryPsychotherapistPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor In a recent editorial concerning preoperative fasting guidelines, Abola and Gan1 ask the question, “Why are we not following them?” They go on to state that if patients are not drinking clear fluids up until 2 hours before surgery, then individual hospital practices should change to conform to what has long since2 been recommended by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), reinforced by recently updated 2017 guidelines.3 Although they raise this important question, it goes relatively unanswered in the editorial as the authors principally focus on what they suggest are even more pertinent questions—that is, the composition of the fluid that patients should actually be drinking (eg, carbohydrate-containing fluids), and what the outcome benefits are of ensuring this preoperative oral hydration. To address the reasons why fasting guidelines are well endorsed (ie, by various societies, institutions, and individual practitioners), though are inconsistently implemented, we suggest that an important limitation lay in the subtleties and nuance of the language used in the guidelines that adds unnecessary uncertainty as to their exact meaning. Indeed, there is considerable power in language, and one of the reasons why many may not be following them is that the guidelines themselves are somewhat ambiguous as to their intent; accordingly, they may fail to explicitly direct perioperative caregivers. For example, up until only a few months ago, the ASA guidelines document2 restricted clear fluids for “at least” 2 hours preoperatively—that is, with the “at least” (instead of “no more than” or “up until”) perhaps being interpreted as a tacit suggestion that a longer restriction period might be better. Admittedly, although the language in the most up-to-date ASA document3 that now allows for clear fluids “up to” 2 hours is arguably more clear, it is still a far cry from the explicit language used by more recent guidelines promulgated by the American Society of Enhanced Recovery (ASER) in their joint consensus statement on perioperative fluid management.4 The ASER guidelines explicitly recommend unrestricted access to clear fluids “up to” 2 hours before surgery. In addition, similar European guidelines5 on preoperative fasting go further by stating that adults should actually be encouraged (ie, not just “allowed”) to drink clear fluids up to 2 hours before elective surgery. This explicit language of active encouragement is also used in the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society preoperative fasting guidelines.6 This differs markedly from the earlier ASA guideline that states it is appropriate to fast—that is, with “fast” possessing a negative and passive connotation of “withholding,” as opposed to a more positive and active connotation by providing language as to when it is acceptable to keep “drinking”—from intake of clear fluids “at least 2 hours before elective procedures requiring general anesthesia ….”2 In summary, we would submit that one of the reasons why preoperative fasting guidelines have not been as fastidiously followed as is ideal, is that the language used in them has left many practitioners, until very recently, without clear and explicit direction on what to actually do. Hilary P. Grocott, MD, FRCPC, FASEC. Scott Brudney, MBChB, FRCA, FFICM, FCCMDepartment of AnesthesiaUniversity of ManitobaWinnipeg, Manitoba, Canada[email protected]

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.311
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207