Intravenous fluids are essential components of perioperative care, supporting intravascular volume, acid–base balance and electrolyte homeostasis. Despite extensive research in adult surgical populations, paediatric-specific evidence remains limited, and clinical practice frequently relies on extrapolated adult-based recommendations. This gap is particularly relevant in paediatric non-cardiac surgery, where fluid choice may influence key physiological outcomes such as acid–base status, electrolyte balance, renal function and haemodynamic stability. Given the heterogeneity of study designs, perioperative phases, age groups and reported outcomes in the paediatric literature, a comprehensive synthesis of the existing evidence is needed before a systematic review can be undertaken.

We will conduct this scoping review following the methodological guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, and the reporting will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline.

This scoping review will map existing evidence on perioperative intravenous fluid management in paediatric patients (

Eligibility is framed using participants, concept and context: paediatric patients (

This scoping review involves no primary data collection and relies exclusively on published literature; therefore, formal ethical approval is not required. The protocol received administrative approval from the Comité de Ética para la Investigación Científica of Universidad del Cauca (approval no. 6553, 11 June 2025). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and targeted communication with paediatric anaesthesia and surgical communities.

We aimed to assess usage and explore factors influencing the suitability of British Medical Journal (BMJ) Rapid Recommendations—a set of international guidelines meeting standards of trustworthiness—for adaptation and implementation, further defined as implementability.

Qualitative descriptive study with a multimethod approach.

We used citation screening and a survey to identify groups that had used any of a sample of 14 BMJ Rapid Recommendations in adoption, adaptation, de novo guideline development or implementation.

12 participants from a range of country income levels were interviewed, using semistructured interviews.

Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis to identify themes related to implementability of the guidelines. We compared these findings with those from a critical appraisal conducted using three different appraisal tools.

BMJ Rapid Recommendations are used in high-income, middle-income and low-income countries. We identified 33 instances of use. Our thematic analysis of the interviews uncovered 14 challenges to implementability, categorised under perceived trustworthiness, comprehensibility and practical relevance. The critical appraisals gave the BMJ Rapid Recommendations high scores on validity, but low scores on implementability and measurability. The challenges found in the interviews were generally corroborated by the appraisals, but the comparison also exposed tensions such as the complex interaction between methodological rigour and perceived credibility, the balance between novelty and compatibility with current practice, and the difficulty of offering globally applicable yet locally practical guidance.

Implementability challenges may limit effective use of international guidelines globally. Recognising and reflecting on tensions between rigour, credibility and contextual feasibility may help improve their uptake and value. The next phase of this research will explore strategies to enhance guideline implementability during their development.

Acute abdominal pain is a chief complaint in emergency departments and represents 7%–10% of emergency room (ER) visits. Acute appendicitis represents 15% of the causes of abdominal pain and 62% of the causes that require surgical treatment. Opioid analgesia has been evaluated in clinical trials, and they have determined it does not impact diagnostic accuracy. Despite evidence, withholding analgesia is still a common practice. Pain severely impacts quality of life and analgesia has become essential in humanised medicine. We aim to determine the safety and effectiveness of different opioid regimens for adult patients that present to the ER with acute suspected appendicitis.

We will search MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without restrictions on the study publication date. Screening, extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed in duplicate. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We will perform both pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) if transitivity and coherence principles are met. Heterogeneity will be evaluated using the I² and ² and using the thresholds recommended by Cochrane. We will perform sensitivity analysis based on the pre-established potential effect modifiers, risk of bias and data that required transformation or imputation. Publication bias will be addressed by using funnel plots on a pairwise level. We will assess the strength of the body of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) per outcome, and evidence from the NMA will be assessed using the GRADE approach for NMA.

Approval by an ethics committee is not required for this study since no personal information will be handled. Information will be disseminated by publication on a peer-reviewed journal.

CRD42024583804.