Trial reportIndian journal of pediatrics2011
Hypertonic versus normal saline as initial fluid bolus in pediatric septic shock.
Trial report in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Etiology, Pathophysiology and Mortality of Shock in Children in Low (Middle) Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Journal of tropical pediatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Global Case-Fatality Rates in Pediatric Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA pediatrics · 2019Pooled it
- Liberal versus conservative fluid therapy in adults and children with sepsis or septic shock.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Primary Outcome Measures in Pediatric Septic Shock Trials: A Systematic Review.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2017Pooled it
- Mortality after fluid bolus in children with shock due to sepsis or severe infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2012Pooled it
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of 3% saline and 0.9% saline infusion as initial resuscitative fluid therapy in children with septic shock.
methodsSixty children between 2 to 12 years of age with septic shock were randomized to receive normal saline or 3% saline as initial resuscitative fluid. Fluid resuscitation was done with 0.9% saline in boluses of 20 ml/kg, each bolus over a duration of 15 min with a maximum of 2 boluses. Fluid resuscitation with 3% saline was given as a single bolus of 15 ml/kg over 30 min. After initial fluid bolus completion, if hemodynamic stability was not achieved then further fluid boluses of 0.9% saline were given in volumes of 5-10 ml/kg guided by CVP.
resultsThere were 30 patients in both the groups. Both the groups were identical with respect to age, gender, primary diagnosis, laboratory parameters, initial hemodynamic parameters and PRISM score at time of admission. The amount of total fluid bolus required for resuscitation was approximately half in the group who received 3% saline as compared to the group who received 0.9% saline. The use of vasopressor drugs, shock reversal time, ICU stay and mortality rate were similar in both the groups. No adverse effects related to fluid therapy were observed in any of the groups.
conclusionsBoth normal saline and hypertonic saline were equally effective as resuscitation fluid with respect to restoration of hemodynamic stability, average duration of ICU stay and mortality. Hypertonic saline appears to be a promising fluid for resuscitation of septic shock.
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.