Supplemental peri‐operative intravenous crystalloids for postoperative nausea and vomiting: an abridged Cochrane systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We conducted a Cochrane systematic review on the effectiveness of supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. We included randomised controlled trials of patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and given supplemental peri‐operative intravenous crystalloid. Our primary outcomes were the risk of postoperative nausea and the risk of postoperative vomiting. We assessed the risk of bias for each included study and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework for the certainty of evidence. We included 41 studies. We found that the intervention probably reduces the overall risk of postoperative nausea, the risk ratio (95%CI) being 0.62 (0.51–0.75) (I 2 = 57%, p < 0.00001, 18 studies; 1766 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). It also probably reduces the risk of postoperative nausea within 6 h of surgery, with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 0.67 (0.58 to 0.78) (I 2 = 9%, p < 0.00001, 20 studies; 2310 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence) and by around 24 h, the risk ratio (95%CI) being 0.47 (0.32–0.69) (I 2 = 38%, p = 0.0001, 17 studies; 1682 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Supplemental intravenous crystalloid probably also reduces the overall risk of postoperative vomiting, with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 0.50 (0.40–0.63) (I 2 = 31%, p < 0.00001, 20 studies; 1970 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). The beneficial effect on vomiting was seen both within 6 h and by around 24 h postoperatively.
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 | 0.012 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".