MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294845574 · doi:10.3390/life12091390

Fluid Management, Intra-Abdominal Hypertension and the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome: A Narrative Review

2022· review· en· W4294845574 on OpenAlexaff
Rita Jacobs, Robert Wise, Ivan Myatchin, Domien Vanhonacker, Andrea Minini, Michaël Mekeirele, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Bruno M. Pereira, Michael Sugrue, Bart De Keulenaer, Zsolt Bodnár, Stefan Acosta, Janeth C. Ejike, Salar Tayebi, Johan Stiens, Colin Cordemans, Niels Van Regenmortel, Paul Elbers, Xavier Monnet, Adrian Wong, Wojciech Dąbrowski, Philippe G. Jorens, Jan J. De Waele, Derek J. Roberts, Edward J. Kimball, Annika Reintam Blaser, Manu L. N. G. Malbrain

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen
KeywordsAbdominal compartment syndromeMedicineResuscitationIntensive care medicineObservational studyAbdomenRandomized controlled trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: General pathophysiological mechanisms regarding associations between fluid administration and intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) are evident, but specific effects of type, amount, and timing of fluids are less clear. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to summarize current knowledge on associations between fluid administration and intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and fluid management in patients at risk of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). METHODS: We performed a structured literature search from 1950 until May 2021 to identify evidence of associations between fluid management and intra-abdominal pressure not limited to any specific study or patient population. Findings were summarized based on the following information: general concepts of fluid management, physiology of fluid movement in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension, and data on associations between fluid administration and IAH. RESULTS: We identified three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 38 prospective observational studies, 29 retrospective studies, 18 case reports in adults, two observational studies and 10 case reports in children, and three animal studies that addressed associations between fluid administration and IAH. Associations between fluid resuscitation and IAH were confirmed in most studies. Fluid resuscitation contributes to the development of IAH. However, patients with IAH receive more fluids to manage the effect of IAH on other organ systems, thereby causing a vicious cycle. Timing and approach to de-resuscitation are of utmost importance, but clear indicators to guide this decision-making process are lacking. In selected cases, only surgical decompression of the abdomen can stop deterioration and prevent further morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence confirms an association between fluid resuscitation and secondary IAH, but optimal fluid management strategies for patients with IAH remain controversial.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations56
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifeSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207