Cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy for patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery: OPTIMISE II randomised clinical trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy for patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery: OPTIMISE II randomised clinical trial.
Item: Cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy for patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery: OPTIMISE II randomised clinical trial.
Rating: 59
Author: Αlpha¹

OPTIMISE II Trial Group

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4.5★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy for patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery: OPTIMISE II randomised clinical trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 16, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4.5 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

StatisticsPrinted percentage does not match its own count (capped) ×3−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 10 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced2 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Printed percentage does not match its own countRecomputed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported multicentre randomised controlled trial. The main methodological strengths are the rigorous design, clear reporting of statistical methods, and comprehensive ethical approvals. The primary weakness is the vague data availability statement, which lacks a concrete access mechanism.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and this was adopted. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were not applicable (e.g., animal-related items) and were excluded. The reviewers agreed on all dimensions except for minor discrepancies in key resources (software identification) and reporting transparency (reporting guideline), which were resolved by adopting the more specific evidence.

6 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Recomputed 6 tests: 6 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 5 via agent-written checks. 3 printed percentages that do not match their own count.

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites previous studies and meta-analyses suggesting benefits of cardiac output-guided therapy while acknowledging controversies and limitations such as high risk of bias in older trials. The rationale for targeting postoperative infections is well-articulated, linking the intervention to improved tissue perfusion and inflammatory pathways.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes its scientific premise by citing prior work, outlining the rationale for the intervention, and discussing limitations of previous research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Cardiac output-guided therapy has proved controversial at times, and excessive early pulmonary artery catheter use generated safety concerns.”