↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative fluid therapy: a statement from the international Fluid Optimization Group

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 273)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
59 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
362 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
Perioperative fluid therapy: a statement from the international Fluid Optimization Group
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13741-015-0014-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lais Helena Camacho Navarro, Joshua A Bloomstone, Jose Otavio Costa Auler, Maxime Cannesson, Giorgio Della Rocca, Tong J Gan, Michael Kinsky, Sheldon Magder, Timothy E Miller, Monty Mythen, Azriel Perel, Daniel A Reuter, Michael R Pinsky, George C Kramer

Abstract

Perioperative fluid therapy remains a highly debated topic. Its purpose is to maintain or restore effective circulating blood volume during the immediate perioperative period. Maintaining effective circulating blood volume and pressure are key components of assuring adequate organ perfusion while avoiding the risks associated with either organ hypo- or hyperperfusion. Relative to perioperative fluid therapy, three inescapable conclusions exist: overhydration is bad, underhydration is bad, and what we assume about the fluid status of our patients may be incorrect. There is wide variability of practice, both between individuals and institutions. The aims of this paper are to clearly define the risks and benefits of fluid choices within the perioperative space, to describe current evidence-based methodologies for their administration, and ultimately to reduce the variability with which perioperative fluids are administered. Based on the abovementioned acknowledgements, a group of 72 researchers, well known within the field of fluid resuscitation, were invited, via email, to attend a meeting that was held in Chicago in 2011 to discuss perioperative fluid therapy. From the 72 invitees, 14 researchers representing 7 countries attended, and thus, the international Fluid Optimization Group (FOG) came into existence. These researches, working collaboratively, have reviewed the data from 162 different fluid resuscitation papers including both operative and intensive care unit populations. This manuscript is the result of 3 years of evidence-based, discussions, analysis, and synthesis of the currently known risks and benefits of individual fluids and the best methods for administering them. The results of this review paper provide an overview of the components of an effective perioperative fluid administration plan and address both the physiologic principles and outcomes of fluid administration. We recommend that both perioperative fluid choice and therapy be individualized. Patients should receive fluid therapy guided by predefined physiologic targets. Specifically, fluids should be administered when patients require augmentation of their perfusion and are also volume responsive. This paper provides a general approach to fluid therapy and practical recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 362 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Guatemala 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 352 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 60 17%
Researcher 43 12%
Student > Master 41 11%
Student > Postgraduate 34 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 8%
Other 99 27%
Unknown 57 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 235 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 3%
Engineering 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 1%
Other 19 5%
Unknown 63 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 20 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,041,336
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#9
of 273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,719
of 279,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 279,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them