The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical review: Goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups
Open accessAbstract
Patients with limited cardiac reserve are less likely to survive and develop more complications following major surgery. By augmenting oxygen delivery index (DO2I) with a combination of intravenous fluids and inotropes (goal directed therapy (GDT)), postoperative mortality and morbidity of high-risk patients may be reduced. However, although most studies suggest that GDT may improve outcome in high-risk surgical patients, it is still not widely practiced. We set out to test the hypothesis that GDT results in greatest benefit in terms of mortality and morbidity in patients with the highest risk of mortality and have undertaken a systematic review of the current literature to see if this is correct. We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reviews of GDT in surgical patients. To minimize heterogeneity we excluded studies involving cardiac, trauma, and paediatric surgery. Extremely high risk, high risk and intermediate risks of mortality were defined as >20%, 5 to 20% and <5% mortality rates in the control arms of the trials, respectively. Meta analyses were performed and Forest plots drawn using RevMan software. Data are presented as odd ratios (OR; 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P-values). A total of 32 RCTs including 2,808 patients were reviewed. All studies reported mortality. Five studies (including 300 patients) were excluded from assessment of complication rates as the number of patients with complications was not reported. The mortality benefit of GDT was confined to the extremely high-risk group (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; P < 0.0001). Complication rates were reduced in all subgroups (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; P < 0.00001). The morbidity benefit was greatest amongst patients in the extremely high-risk subgroup (OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.51; P < 0.0001), followed by the intermediate risk subgroup (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; P = 0.0002), and the high-risk subgroup (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.89; P = 0.01). Despite heterogeneity in trial quality and design, we found GDT to be beneficial in all high-risk patients undergoing major surgery. The mortality benefit of GDT was confined to the subgroup of patients at extremely high risk of death. The reduction of complication rates was seen across all subgroups of GDT patients.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock
Rivers, E., Nguyen, B., Havstad, S., Ressler, J., Muzzin, A., Knoblich, B., Peterson, E., & Tomlanovich, M. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa010307 · Cited by 10,743
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration
Higgins, J., Green, S. R., & Higgins, J. (2008) · Cited by 5,544
The Effectiveness of Right Heart Catheterization in the Initial Care of Critically III Patients
Connors, A. F. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540110043030 · Cited by 2,210
Shoemaker, W. C., Appel, P. L., Kram, H. B., Waxman, K., & Lee, T.-S. (1988) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.94.6.1176 · Cited by 1,794
Brandstrup, B., Tønnesen, H., Beier-Holgersen, R., Hjortsø, E., Ørding, H., Lindorff-Larsen, K., Rasmussen, M. S., Lanng, C., Wallin, L., Iversen, L. H., et al. (2003) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000094387.50865.23 · Cited by 1,585
Elevation of Systemic Oxygen Delivery in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients
Hayes, M. A., Timmins, A. C., Yau, E., Palazzo, M., Hinds, C. J., & Watson, D. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199406163302404 · Cited by 1,538
Sandham, J. D., Hull, R. D., Brant, R. F., Knox, L., Pineo, G. F., Doig, C. J., Laporta, D. P., Viner, S., Passerini, L., Devitt, H., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa021108 · Cited by 1,529
A Trial of Goal-Oriented Hemodynamic Therapy in Critically Ill Patients
Gattinoni, L., Brazzi, L., Pelosi, P., Latini, R., Tognoni, G., Pesenti, A., & Fumagalli, R. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199510193331601 · Cited by 1,510
Cited by
Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: A global inception cohort study
on behalf of the FENICE Investigators and the ESICM Trial Group, Cecconi, M., Hofer, C., Teboul, J.-L., Pettila, V., Wilkman, E., Molnar, Z., Della Rocca, G., Aldecoa, C., Artigas, A., et al. (2015) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3850-x · Cited by 573
Self-citationFour phases of intravenous fluid therapy: a conceptual model
Hoste, E. A., Maitland, K., Brudney, C. S., Mehta, R., Vincent, J.-L., Yates, D., Kellum, J. A., Mythen, M. G., & Shaw, A. D. (2014) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aeu300 · Cited by 357
Joliat, G., Kobayashi, K., Hasegawa, K., Thomson, J., Padbury, R., Scott, M., Brustia, R., Scatton, O., Tran Cao, H. S., Vauthey, J., et al. (2023) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-022-06732-5 · Cited by 330
Benes, J., Giglio, M., Brienza, N., & Michard, F. (2014) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0584-z · Cited by 257
Effective hemodynamic monitoring
Pinsky, M. R., Cecconi, M., Chew, M. S., De Backer, D., Douglas, I., Edwards, M., Hamzaoui, O., Hernandez, G., Martin, G., Monnet, X., et al. (2022) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-022-04173-z · Cited by 167
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cecconi, M., Corredor, C., Arulkumaran, N., Abuella, G., Ball, J., Grounds, R. M., Hamilton, M., & Rhodes, A.
- Venue
- Critical Care
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 209
- ISSN
- 1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2132840395
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 72
- FWCI
- 27.06
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Clinical review: Goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/cc11823
- The paper
- Cecconi, M., Corredor, C., Arulkumaran, N., Abuella, G., Ball, J., Grounds, R. M., Hamilton, M., & Rhodes, A. (2012). Clinical review: Goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups. Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11823
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.