The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effects of goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic parameters on post-surgical outcome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Dynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness, namely systolic pressure variation, pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation and pleth variability index have been shown to be useful to identify in advance patients who will respond to a fluid load by a significant increase in stroke volume and cardiac output. As a result, they are increasingly used to guide fluid therapy. Several randomized controlled trials have tested the ability of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) based on dynamic parameters (GDFTdyn) to improve post-surgical outcome. These studies have yielded conflicting results. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to investigate whether the use of GDFTdyn is associated with a decrease in post-surgical morbidity. Methods: A systematic literature review, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library databases through September 2013 was conducted. Data synthesis was obtained by using odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by random-effects model. Results: In total, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria (961 participants). Post-operative morbidity was reduced by GDFTdyn (OR 0.51; CI 0.34 to 0.75; P <0.001). This effect was related to a significant reduction in infectious (OR 0.45; CI 0.27 to 0.74; P = 0.002), cardiovascular (OR 0.55; CI 0.36 to 0.82; P = 0.004) and abdominal (OR 0.56; CI 0.37 to 0.86; P = 0.008) complications. It was associated with a significant decrease in ICU length of stay (WMD -0.75 days; CI -1.37 to -0.12; P = 0.02). Conclusions: In surgical patients, we found that GDFTdyn decreased post-surgical morbidity and ICU length of stay. Because of the heterogeneity of studies analyzed, large prospective clinical trials would be useful to confirm our findings.
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
1 retracted
Boldt, J., Lenz, M., Kumle, B., et al. (1998) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s001340050536 · Cited by 148
RetractedPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
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
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
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
(2008) · Cited by 3,790
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396
Systematic review and meta-analysis
(2019) · Providing Information for Health · doi:10.1201/9781315377315-19 · Cited by 2,659
Cited by
Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients
Teboul, J.-L., Saugel, B., Cecconi, M., De Backer, D., Hofer, C. K., Monnet, X., Perel, A., Pinsky, M. R., Reuter, D. A., Rhodes, A., et al. (2016) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4375-7 · Cited by 328
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Benes, J., Giglio, M., Brienza, N., & Michard, F.
- Venue
- Critical Care
- Published
- 2014-10-28
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 584-584
- ISSN
- 1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131257790
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 4.91
- 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: The effects of goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic parameters on post-surgical outcome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13054-014-0584-z
- The paper
- Benes, J., Giglio, M., Brienza, N., & Michard, F. (2014). The effects of goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic parameters on post-surgical outcome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0584-z
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.