MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401015612 · doi:10.1016/j.burnso.2024.100364

Oral/enteral fluid resuscitation in the initial management of major burns: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human and animal studies

2024· review· en· W4401015612 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Hsun Hsiao, Joseph Kalanzi, Stuart B. Watson, Srinivas Murthy, Ani Movsisyan, Kavita Kothari, Flavio Salio, Pryanka Relan

Bibliographic record

VenueBurns Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsResuscitationMedicineEnteral administrationCochrane LibraryIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisAnesthesiaInternal medicineParenteral nutrition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Timely and safe intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation for major burns may be difficult or impossible during mass casualty burn incidents. Oral/enteral fluid resuscitation may be an alternative. Objectives: To synthesize and assess certainty of evidence on oral/enteral fluid resuscitation as compared to IV or no fluid resuscitation for major burns. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched on 8 September 2023. Primary quantitative studies meeting criteria as assessed by two reviewers were included. Meta-analyses for outcome effects of oral/enteral versus IV and of oral/enteral versus no fluid resuscitation were conducted. Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. Results: Seven human and eight animal studies were included. Three human RCTs totalling 100 participants contributed to estimates. Compared to IV fluid resuscitation, oral/enteral fluid resuscitation is associated with a statistically insignificant increased risk of mortality (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.33-5.36) but the evidence is very uncertain, and no difference in urine output (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.65-0.31) with moderate certainty of evidence. Eight controlled animal studies totalling 212 participants contributed to estimates. From these animal studies, enteral fluid resuscitation may increase mortality (OR 36.00, 95% CI 2.72-476.28), worsen creatinine levels (MD 22 mmol/L, 95% CI 15.8-28.2), and increase urine output (MD 1 ml/kg/h, 95% CI 0.55-1.45) compared to IV, but all with very low certainty of evidence. Again, from animal studies, all the evidence is very uncertain, but compared to no fluid resuscitation, enteral resuscitation is associated with a statistically insignificant reduction in mortality (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08-1.09), improved creatinine levels (SMD -3.48, 95% CI -4.69 to -2.28), and increased urine output (MD 0.55 ml/kg/h, 95% CI 0.38-0.72). Conclusions: Current evidence comparing oral/enteral and IV fluid resuscitation for major burns is limited and uncertain. However, where IV fluid resuscitation is unavailable or delayed, oral fluid resuscitation could be considered.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBurns OpenSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207