Systematic review and meta-analysis of fluid therapy protocols in acute pancreatitis: type, rate and route
HPB, ISSN: 1365-182X, Vol: 23, Issue: 11, Page: 1629-1638
2021
- 27Citations
- 53Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations27
- Citation Indexes26
- 26
- CrossRef23
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures53
- Readers53
- 53
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
Fluid therapy protocol in acute pancreatitis
"Based on low-certainty evidence, moderate-rate fluid infusion should be preferred over high-rate infusion" Di Martino et al (2021). Abstract: Background: Adequate fluid resuscitation is paramount
Review Description
Adequate fluid resuscitation is paramount in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study is to assess benefits and harms of fluid therapy protocols in patients with AP. MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index and clinical trial registries were searched for randomised clinical trials published before May 2020, assessing types of fluids, routes and rates of administration. A total 15 trials (1073 participants) were included. Age ranged from 38 to 73 years; follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 6 months. Ringer lactate (RL) showed a reduced number of severe adverse events (SAE) when compared to normal saline (NS) (OR 0.48; 95%CI 0.29–0.81, p = 0.006); additionally, NS showed reduced SAE (RR 0.38; 95%IC 0.27–0.54, p < 0.001) and organ failure (RR 0.30; 95%CI 0.21–0.44, p < 0.001) in comparison with hydroxyethyl starch (HES). High fluid rate fluid infusion showed increased mortality (OR 2.88; 95%CI 1.41–5.88, p = 0.004), increased number of SAE (RR 1.42; 95%CI 1.04–1.93, p = 0.030) and higher incidence of sepsis (RR 2.80; 95%CI 1.51–5.19, p = 0.001) compared to moderate fluid rate infusion. In patients with AP, RL should be preferred over NS and HES should not be recommended. Based on low-certainty evidence, moderate-rate fluid infusion should be preferred over high-rate infusion.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365182X21006080; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2021.06.426; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85111490163&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34325967; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1365182X21006080; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2021.06.426
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know