ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2002
Choice of fluid for resuscitation of septic shock.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Choice of fluids for resuscitation in children with severe infection and shock: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Pooled it
- Fluid resuscitation of hypovolemic shock: acute medicine's great triumph for children.Intensive care medicine · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine current practice in choice of fluid resuscitation in children following publication of a systematic review that demonstrated a higher mortality in patients treated with human albumin solution.
methodsA descriptive telephone and postal questionnaire survey directed at the on call paediatric registrar, lead clinician for paediatrics and the paediatric pharmacist at each of 33 hospitals within the Greater London area. The study was coordinated by the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit at St Mary's Hospital, London. The questionnaire was designed to assess whether a protocol/guidelines existed for resuscitation fluid in children with septic shock; whether the participants were aware of the systematic review and if so, had it changed clinical practice. The word "protocol" was used in its broadest sense to include guideline and policy.
results11 hospitals had guidelines for fluid resuscitation of septic shock in children. These varied greatly: only three gave clear instructions of which fluid to use and how to use it. Choice of fluid varied widely and there was wide discrepancy between consultant's and registrar's choice of fluid. The systematic review had lead to a change in policy in two thirds of respondents.
conclusionIt is apparent that few paediatric departments have a written protocol or guidelines for the management of septic shock that is accessible to all those concerned in the acute treatment of seriously ill children. The systematic review into choice of fluid has had an impact on clinical practice with no data regarding whether this is in the patient's best interests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.