SynthesisDer Anaesthesist2011
[Estimation of substitution volume after burn trauma. Systematic review of published formulae].
Synthesis in Der Anaesthesist, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric First-Degree Burn Management With Honey and 1% Silver Sulfadiazine (Ag-SD): Comparison and Contrast.Cureus · 2022Article
- [Emergency medical actions in firefighting operations].Der Anaesthesist · 2016Review
- [Preclinical treatment of severe burn trauma due to an electric arc on an overhead railway cable].Der Unfallchirurg · 2013Article
- [When is enough enough or even too much?].Der Anaesthesist · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluid resuscitation after severe burns remains a challenging task particularly in the preclinical and early clinical phases. To facilitate volume substitution after burn trauma several formulae have been published and evaluated, nevertheless, the optimal formula has not yet been identified.
methodsA systematic PubMed search was performed to identify published formulae for fluid resuscitation after severe burns. The search terms "burn", "thermal", "treatment", "therapy" or "resuscitation", "fluid", "formula" and "adult", "pediatric" or "paediatric" were used in various combinations. Analysis was limited to the period from 01.01.1950 to 30.06.2010 and database entries in PubMed (http://www.pubmed.com). Additionally, references cited in the papers were analyzed and relevant publications were also included. Publications and formulae were assessed and classified by two independent investigators.
resultsWithin the specified time frame eight publications (five original contributions and three book chapters) were identified of which three formulae recommended colloid solutions, four recommended electrolyte solutions and one suggested hypertonic solutions within the first 24 h for fluid resuscitation. Only one formula specifically dealt with fluid resuscitation in infants.
conclusionThe identified formulae led to sometimes strikingly diverse calculations of resuscitation fluid volumes. Therefore their use should be monitored closely and clinical values included. Urine output is a well established individual parameter. Use of colloid and hypertonic solutions leads to a reduced total fluid volume but is still controversially discussed.
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.