Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 736

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Open access
·2010·Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica

Abstract

Background: Fluid balance in patients who have undergone gastrointestinal surgery is known to be challenging to monitor, resulting in imprecise and inaccurate measurements.Despite this knowledge, any association between fluid balance accuracy and the development of postoperative complications in the early postoperative period is limited.This scoping review aims to map the existing knowledge between fluid monitoring and the development of postoperative morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stays (LoS) in patients who have undergone gastrointestinal surgery.Methods: The review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews and will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) recommendations.The search will be conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library.Data extraction will be charted based on trial characteristics and include study information, methodology, basic data, surgical data, methods for the monitoring of fluid balance, accuracy of fluid balance monitoring, guidelines used for postoperative fluids, fluid intake, fluid loss, LoS, morbidity, and mortality.Results: A structured overview will be summarized using descriptive statistics and presented in tables and figures with a supplementary narrative summary of additional findings.Conclusion: This planned scoping review will help identify existing knowledge and gaps in literature regarding methods in fluid monitoring, as well as any correlation between fluid monitoring and the development of postoperative complications to support further research in the area. | IntroductionMonitoring fluid balance in patients who have undergone surgery is essential and is therefore an integral part of hospital care for many patients worldwide [1].If fluid management is inadequate or imprecise, the result is often hypovolemia or fluid overload.Several international studies indicate that fluid management in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery should be closely monitored and that fluid management influences postoperative complications, hospital stays, and even mortality [2-6].Fluid monitoring is often performed by nursing staff who are responsible for maintaining a fluid chart to track the patient's

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/(issn)1399-6576

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 736

Metadata

Venue
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-27
ISSN
0001-5172 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4234905512
Cited by
736
References
0
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/(issn)1399-6576
The paper
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. (2010). Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. https://doi.org/10.1111/(issn)1399-6576

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.