Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23524045›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques.

Evan T Cole, Greg Harvey, Gary Foster, Lehana Thabane, Melissa J Parker

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01774214 (Rapid Pediatric Fluid Resuscitation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT01774214 nacompletednot on this map

Rapid Pediatric Fluid Resuscitation: a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficiency of Two Provider-Endorsed Manual Fluid Resuscitation Techniques

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster Children's HospitalRan2013 to 2013Enrolled16ConditionsResuscitation, Shock, Fluid Therapy, PediatricsArmsPush-Pull technique, Disconnect-Reconnect Technique
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Improving Aseptic Technique During the Treatment of Pediatric Septic Shock: A Comparison of 2 Rapid Fluid Delivery Methods.Journal of infusion nursing : the official publication of the Infusion Nurses Society
    Article
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

5 authors.

Evan T ColeDepartment of Pediatrics, McMaster Children's Hospital and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Greg Harvey
Gary Foster
Lehana Thabane
Melissa J Parker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPaediatric shock is a life-threatening condition with many possible causes and a global impact. Current resuscitation guidelines require rapid fluid administration as a cornerstone of paediatric shock management. However, little evidence is available to inform clinicians how to most effectively perform rapid fluid administration where this is clinically required, resulting in suboptimal knowledge translation of current resuscitation guidelines into clinical practice.

objectivesThis study aims to determine which of the two commonly used techniques for paediatric fluid resuscitation (disconnect-reconnect technique and push-pull technique) yields a higher fluid administration rate in a simulated clinical scenario. Secondary objectives include determination of catheter dislodgement rates, subjective and objective measures of provider fatiguability and descriptive information regarding any technical issues encountered with performance of each method under the study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will utilise a randomised crossover trial design. Participants will include consenting healthcare providers from McMaster Children's Hospital. Each participant will administer 900 ml (60 ml/kg) of normal saline to a simulated 15 kg infant as quickly as possible on two separate occasions using the manual fluid administration techniques under the study. The primary outcome, rate of fluid administration, will be evaluated using a paired two-tailed Student t test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board.

resultsThese will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Protocol Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01774214.

Identifiers

PMID23524045
PMCPMC3612816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.