↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous nutrients for preventing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intravenous nutrients for preventing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009906.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheryl Warttig, Phil Alderson, Sharon R Lewis, Andrew F Smith

Abstract

Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (a drop in core temperature to below 36°C) occurs because normal temperature regulation is disrupted during surgery, mainly because of the effects of anaesthetic drugs and exposure of the skin for prolonged periods. Many different ways of maintaining body temperature have been proposed, one of which involves administration of intravenous nutrients during the perioperative period that may reduce heat loss by increasing metabolism, thereby increasing heat production. To assess the effectiveness of preoperative or intraoperative intravenous nutrients in preventing perioperative hypothermia and its complications during surgery in adults. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; November 2015) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE, Ovid SP (1956 to November 2015); Embase, Ovid SP (1982 to November 2015); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1950 to November 2015); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO host; 1980 to November 2015), as well as the reference lists of identified articles. We also searched the Current Controlled Trials website and ClincalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of intravenous nutrients compared with control or other interventions given to maintain normothermia in adults undergoing surgery. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included trial, and a third review author checked details if necessary. We contacted some study authors to request additional information. We included 14 trials (n = 565), 13 (n = 525) of which compared intravenous administration of amino acids to a control (usually saline solution or Ringer's lactate). The remaining trial (n = 40) compared intravenous administration of fructose versus a control. We noted much variation in these trials, which used different types of surgery, variable durations of surgery, and different types of participants. Most trials were at high or unclear risk of bias owing to inappropriate or unclear randomization methods, and to unclear participant and assessor blinding. This may have influenced results, but it is unclear how results might have been influenced.No trials reported any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which were risk of hypothermia and major cardiovascular events. Therefore, we decided to analyse data related to core body temperature instead as a primary outcome. It was not possible to conduct meta-analysis of data related to amino acid infusion for the 60-minute and 120-minute time points, as we observed significant statistical heterogeneity in the results. Some trials showed that higher temperatures were associated with amino acids, but not all trials reported statistically significant results, and some trials reported the opposite result, where the amino acid group had a lower core temperature than the control group. It was possible to conduct meta-analysis for six studies (n = 249) that provided data relating to the end of surgery. Amino acids led to a statistically significant increase in core temperature in comparison to those receiving control (MD = 0.46°C 95% CI 0.33 to 0.59; I(2) 0.0%; random-effects; moderate quality evidence).Three trials (n = 155) reported shivering as an outcome. Meta-analysis did not show a clear effect, and so it is uncertain whether amino acids reduce the risk of shivering (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.00; I(2) = 93%; random-effects model; very low-quality evidence). Intravenous amino acids may keep participants up to a half-degree C warmer than the control. This difference was statistically significant at the end of surgery, but not at other time points. However, the clinical importance of this finding remains unclear. It is also unclear whether amino acids have any effect on the risk of shivering and if intravenous nutrients confer any other benefits or harms, as high-quality data about these outcomes are lacking.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 26%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 9 8%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 13%
Psychology 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 26 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,336,332
of 13,576,937 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,153
of 10,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,199
of 377,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,576,937 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 377,514 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.