Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14997309›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2004

[New therapeutic approaches in the treatment of shock: hypertonic hyperoncotic solutions and vasopressin].

A Meier-Hellman, G Burgard

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Meier-HellmanKlinik für Anästhesie, Intensivmedizin und Schmerztherapie, HELIOS-Klinikum Erfurt GmbH.
G Burgard
Helios Klinikum Erfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extreme disturbance of hemodynamics in shock leads to a minimized oxygen delivery to several vital organs. If this state is not rapidly lifted, a multi-organ-failure can occur. In addition to the removal of the underlying causes, for example, bleeding or septic focus, measures must be started to stabilize hemodynamics. In most cases shock can be successfully treated with standard therapeutic interventions including the use of crystalloid or colloid solutions as well as the infusion of inotropes or vasopressors. Up to now, there is not enough evidence to show that hypertonic/hyperoncotic solutions are better for treating hypovolemic shock than standard infusions, other than in situations, where only an inadequate equipment is available. Experimental data support the use of vasopressin instead of fluid loading in case of uncontrolled intra-abdominal bleeding. According to these studies vasopressin seems to be associated with an improved hemodynamic stabilization and a significantly lower mortality rate. However, no clinical tests have been done so far to confirm these results. In septic shock the plasma-levels of vasopressin are low. It has been shown that the infusion of vasopressin contributes to stabilization of hemodynamics in septic shock, in lower, as well as in higher concentrations. On the other hand vasopressin worsens splanchnic perfusion. Therefore the routine use of vasopressin in the treatment of sepsis can not be recommended.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesAnimalsDextransHemodynamicsHumansHydroxyethyl Starch DerivativesMicrocirculationOxygenPlasma SubstitutesPrognosisSaline Solution, HypertonicShockDextransHydroxyethyl Starch DerivativesOxygenPlasma SubstitutesSaline Solution, Hypertonic

Identifiers

PMID14997309
OpenAlexW2466311023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.