↓ Skip to main content

Fluid loading in abdominal surgery - saline versus hydroxyethyl starch (FLASH Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Fluid loading in abdominal surgery - saline versus hydroxyethyl starch (FLASH Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-1085-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emmanuel Futier, Matthieu Biais, Thomas Godet, Lise Bernard, Christine Rolhion, Justine Bourdier, Dominique Morand, Bruno Pereira, Samir Jaber

Abstract

Inappropriate fluid therapy during surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Few studies have examined the effects of particular types of fluids (crystalloid or colloid solutions) in surgical patients, especially with the goal of hemodynamic optimization. Isotonic saline is the most commonly used fluid worldwide but may be associated with potential nephrotoxicity. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are widely used in surgical patients as a component of goal-directed fluid optimization strategies, but several large multicenter studies have suggested increased rates of acute kidney injury and adverse events with the use of HES in ICU patients. Despite what may be inferred from physiological studies, the benefit and harm of 0.9 % saline and HES during hemodynamic therapy have not been clearly established in surgical patients. The FLASH trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, two-arm trial, randomizing 826 patients with moderate-to-high risk of postoperative complications to receive 6 % HES 130/0.4 or 0.9 % saline during individualized goal-directed fluid optimization. The primary outcome measure is a composite of death or major postoperative complications within 14 days following surgery. The sample size will allow the detection of a 10 % absolute between-group difference in the primary outcome measure with a type 1 error rate of 5 % and power of 95 %, assuming a 5 % mortality rate and 20 % morbidity (thus 25 % for the composite endpoint). The FLASH trial may provide important data on the efficacy and safety of commonly used fluid solutions and could have a significant impact on future treatment of surgical patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02502773 . Registered 16 June 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Other 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 21 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,488,391
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#207
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,501
of 398,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#76
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 398,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.