Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs usual care: Adverse outcomes ‐ neurological
- Population
- patients with perioperative fluid optimization
- Intervention
- Advanced haemodynamic monitoring
- Comparison
- usual care
- Outcome
- Adverse outcomes ‐ neurological
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring showed no clear difference in adverse outcomes ‐ neurological compared with usual care (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs usual care Adverse outcomes ‐ neurological · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Advanced haemodynamic monitoring showed no clear difference in adverse outcomes ‐ neurological compared with usual care (low certainty). Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.1 [0.56, 2.18] | 2 studies · 173 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs protocol using standard measures such · patients with proximal femoral fracture · 1 review
- Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs usual care · patients with proximal femoral fracture · 0 reviews
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.