SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001
Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cochrane: the unfinished symphony of research synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- A review of emergency equipment carried and procedures performed by UK front line paramedics on paediatric patients.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColloids are widely used in the replacement of fluid volume, however doubts remain as to their benefits. Different colloids vary in their molecular weight and therefore in the length of time they remain in the circulatory system. Because of this and their other characteristics, they may differ in their safety and efficacy.
objectivesTo compare the effects of different colloid solutions in patients thought to need volume replacement. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Injuries Group specialised register, The Cochrane Controlled trials register (all years), MEDLINE (1994-2000), EMBASE (1974-2000) were searched. Bibliographies of trials retrieved were searched, and drug companies manufacturing colloids were contacted for information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi randomised trials comparing colloid solutions in critically ill and surgical patients thought to need volume replacement. The main outcomes measured were death, amount of whole blood transfused and incidence of adverse reactions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. MAIN
results52 trials met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 3311 participants. Quality of allocation concealment was judged to be adequate in 17 trials and poor or uncertain in 35. Deaths were obtained from 31 trials. For albumin or PPF versus hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 20 trials (n=1029) reported mortality. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.17 (95% CI 0.91, 1.50). For albumin or PPF versus gelatin four trials (n=542) reported mortality. The RR was 0.99 (0.69, 1.42). For gelatin vs HES six trials (n=597) reported mortality, RR was 0.96 (0.69, 1.33). RR was not estimable in the albumin vs dextran, gelatin vs dextran, and HES vs dextran groups. Thirty-one trials recorded the amount of blood transfused, however quantitative analysis was not possible due to skewness and variable reporting. Fifteen trials recorded adverse reactions, but none occurred. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsFrom this review, there is no evidence that one colloid solution is more effective or safe than any other, although the confidence intervals are wide and do not exclude clinically significant differences between colloids. Larger trials of fluid therapy are needed if clinically significant differences in mortality are to be detected or excluded.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11405985What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.