ReviewWiener klinische Wochenschrift2011
Are renal adverse effects of hydroxyethyl starches merely a consequence of their incorrect use?
Review in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomised trials of 6% tetrastarch (hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 or 0.42) for severe sepsis reporting mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis.Intensive care medicine · 2013Pooled it
- Acute kidney injury in critically burned patients treated with hydroxyethyl starch: a response to Sánchez-Sánchez et al.Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2017Article
- Hydroxyeyhyl starch: Controversies revisited.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology · 2014Review
- Reporting bias in trials of volume resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2014Review
- [Limited applications for hydroxyethyl starch : background and alternative concepts].Der Anaesthesist · 2013Review
- Management of acute renal dysfunction in sepsis.Current infectious disease reports · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical studies such as VISEP-study, which show a negative outcome after the administration of hydroxyethyl starch (HES), are often criticized for an "incorrect" use of HES. It is argued that HES used in these studies differed from usual practice and that recommendations for maximal dosage, duration, and creatinine values were ignored, not enough "free water" was provided and more modern HES solutions should have been used. These comments imply that renal adverse events in clinical studies are the consequence of an inappropriate use of HES. We therefore searched for evidence whether these suggested measures are beneficial.
methodsNarrative review; post hoc statistical analysis of epidemiologic data from a representative nationwide survey.
resultsIt is evident from published clinical studies that the renal risk of HES increases with cumulative dose and rising serum creatinine values, but no safe upper dose limit or creatinine threshold is known. Suggested safety measures were not able to prevent HES-induced renal failure in clinical studies. Published clinical trials with modern HES solutions are not suited to prove its assumed increased safety because of small sample sizes, low cumulative doses, short observation periods, and inadequate control fluids. Use of HES in a clinical study with negative outcomes conformed to clinical practice, indicating the generalizability of study results.
conclusionThere is no evidence for the assumption that HES-associated renal impairment may be avoided by accompanying measures. Because HES use does not improve clinical outcome, the question arises whether it should be used at all in patients at risk.
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.