Marx 2000.
Methods | Randomised clinical trial. | |
Participants | Country: Germany.
Number randomised: initially 20, post randomisation drop outs 1, final participants number 19.
Mean age: 58 years.
Females: 8 (42.1%).
Cirrhotic livers: not stated.
Steatotic livers: not stated. Inclusion criteria: Hemihepatectomy. Exclusion criteria: 1. Congestive heart failure. 2. Valvular heart disease. 3. On beta blockers or mono‐oxidase blockers. 4. Liver dysfunction (AST > 80 IU/L, ALT > 80 IU/L). 5. Renal insufficiency (creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl). 6. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score III to V. |
|
Interventions | Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: Intervention group 1: administered dopexamine at 0.5 mcg/kg/min (after induction of anaesthesia until 16 hours postoperatively) (n = 9). Intervention group 2: administered dopamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min (after induction of anaesthesia until 16 hours postoperatively) (n = 10). |
|
Outcomes | The outcomes reported were blood transfusion requirements, markers of liver function, and enzyme markers of liver injury. | |
Notes | We contacted the authors for information regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment (questions sent January 2008; replies received January 2008). The authors provided this information. Reason for drop‐out: intervention group 1: catheter in hepatic vein cut inadvertently (1). |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Adequate sequence generation? | Low risk | Quote: "computer generated" (author replies). |
Allocation concealment? | Unclear risk | Quote: "sealed envelope" (author replies). |
Incomplete outcome data addressed? outcomes 2‐4 weeks | High risk | Comment: post‐randomisation drop‐outs could be related to outcomes. |
Free of selective reporting? | High risk | Comment: important outcomes not reported. |
Free from early stopping bias? | Low risk | Comment: sample size calculation provided and trial not stopped early. |
Free from academic bias? | Low risk | Comment: no previous published studies of the same comparison by the trial authors. |