Summary of findings for the main comparison. Warmed intravenous fluids for preventing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia.
| Warmed intravenous fluids for preventing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia | |||||
| Patient or population: patients with inadvertent perioperative hypothermia Settings: any Intervention: warmed IV fluids | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Control | Warmed IV fluids | ||||
| Core temperature at 30 minutes after induction degrees Celsius | Mean temperature at 30 minutes in the control groups was 36.0°C | Mean temperature at 30 minutes in the intervention groups was 0.41 higher (0.24 to 0.57 higher) | ‐ | 374 (9 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
| Core temperature at 60 minutes after induction degrees Celsius | Mean temperature at 60 minutes in the control groups was 35.9°C | Mean temperature at 60 minutes in the intervention groups was 0.51 higher (0.33 to 0.69 higher) | ‐ | 312 (8 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
| Core temperature at 90 minutes after induction degrees Celsius | Mean temperature at 90 minutes in the control groups was 35.9°C | Mean temperature at 90 minutes in the intervention groups was 0.54 higher (0.04 to 1.04 higher) | ‐ | 109 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
| Core temperature at 120 minutes after induction degrees Celsius | Mean temperature at 120 minutes in the control groups was 35.8°C | Mean temperature at 120 minutes in the intervention groups was 0.74 higher (0.31 to 1.17 higher) | ‐ | 149 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
| Core temperature at end of procedure/arrival to PACU ‐ simple design degrees Celsius | Mean temperature at end of procedure/arrival to PACU ‐ simple design in the control groups ‐ was 35.7°C | Mean temperature at end of procedure/arrival to PACU ‐ simple design in the intervention groups was 0.63 higher (0.28 to 0.98 higher) | ‐ | 682 (11 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea |
| Patient‐reported outcome: shivering various tools | Study population | RR 0.39 (0.23 to 0.67) | 428 (9 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatea | |
| 370 per 1000 | 144 per 1000 (85 to 248) | ||||
| Median | |||||
| 440 per 1000 | 172 per 1000 (101 to 295) | ||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio. | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | |||||
aMost trials had unclear risk of bias with some likelihood of selection bias.