MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392881366 · doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2024.03.003

Preoperative fasting in children. The evolution of recommendations and guidelines, and the underlying evidence

2024· review· en· W4392881366 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Frykholm, Tom G. Hansen, Thomas Engelhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueBest practice & research. Clinical anaesthesiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review discusses the evolution of preoperative fasting guidelines and examines the incidence of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents and suggested treatments. Nine guidelines developed by professional societies and published in peer-reviewed journals since 1994 were identified. The recommendations on preoperative fasting for various categories have undergone only small adaptations in the following three decades in pediatric anesthesia. We found twelve published studies of the incidence of pulmonary aspiration, which ranges from 0.6 to 12 in 10,000 anesthetics in children. However, this variation reflects differences in the definition of aspiration as well as differences in study design. The main risk factors identified are emergency surgery, ASA physical status, and patient age. Several additional risk factors have been suggested, including non-compliance to fasting guidelines. The duration of clear fluid fasting is not associated with an increased risk of pulmonary aspiration which may be reflected in future guideline updates in pediatric anesthesia.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.443
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBest practice & research. Clinical anaesthesiologySame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207