Elsevier

The Lancet

Volume 359, Issue 9300, 5 January 2002, Pages 70-72
The Lancet

Viewpoint
Albumin and hypovolaemia: is the Cochrane evidence to be trusted?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07285-9Get rights and content

Section snippets

The Cochrane Review hypovolaemia group

The studies assigned to the hypovalaemia group consisted of 13 randomised studies in which the relative risk of death from each was assessed and the results pooled. If the relative risk was less than 1·0, it favoured the intervention group, and if it was more than 1·0, it favoured the control group, which received either lactated Ringer's solution or 0·9% saline. Seven of the studies had a relative risk of more than 1·0, and the pooled relative risk of all the results was 1·46. The reviewers

Grundmann and meyers5

This was a study involving 20 patients undergoing elective partial gastrectomy, which the reviewers accepted as a critical illness. The albumin (concentration unspecified but presumably hyperoncotic) was given for the first 4 postoperative days and was supplemental to larger infusions of crystalloids than those given in the control group. As its title makes clear, the albumin was given to determine its effect on colloid oncotic pressure. The single death in the albumin group was due to

Lowe and colleagues14

This study was inaccurately summarised in the review: the total numbers and the concentration of albumin were incorrect. It was a randomised trial of 141 patients (not 171 as written in the review)admitted for abdominal wounds from knives and guns who were given 3·6%(not 25%)albumin during resuscitation and surgery, which averaged 10 h. Two patients in each group died during surgery, and one each in the control and albumin groups subsequently died on the third and fourth days, respectively. The

Discussion

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies is generally accepted as being the most reliable way of determining clinical practice. This situation is true only if the evidence is robust enough to withstand critical peer review. McClelland,16 one of the peer reviewers on the Cochrane Injuries Group and the editor of the Handbook of Transfusion Medicine, described the members of the Cochrane Review as experts in sifting clinical evidence, and wrote that what they did was within the competence

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (17)

  • G Drummond

    Albumin and the Medicines Control Agency

    BMJ

    (1999)
  • Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • M Offringa

    Excess mortality after human albumin administration in critically ill patients

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • I Chalmers

    I would not want an albumin transfusion

    BMJ

    (1998)
  • PC Gotzsche

    Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. It may be crucially important for patients

    BMJ

    (2000)
  • R Grundmann et al.

    The significance of colloid osmotic pressure measurement after crystalloid and colloid infusions

    Intensive Care Med

    (1982)
  • MS Woods et al.

    Oncotic pressure, albumin and ileus: the effect of albumin replacement on postoperative ileus

    Am Surg

    (1993)
  • AJ Woittiez

    Restoration of colloid oncotic pressure in post operative intensive care patients: a randomised placebo controlled trial with albumin 20% and hydroxyethyl starch (Cochrane Review)

    The Cochrane Library, issue 2

    (1998)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text