ReviewPediatric clinics of North America2013
Advances in monitoring and management of shock.
Review in Pediatric clinics of North America, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrocardiometry for the Management of Pediatric Septic Shock: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Critical care explorations · 2025Trial
- Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in adult patients undergoing craniotomies under general anaesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- The new prognostic factor in pre-intubation follow-up of critically ill patients: integrated pulmonary index monitoring.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Article
- Resuscitation with centhaquin and 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 improves survival in a swine model of hemorrhagic shock: a randomized experimental study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2019Article
- Heart rate variability analysis is more sensitive at identifying neonatal sepsis than conventional vital signs.American journal of surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Early recognition and treatment of pediatric shock, regardless of cause, decreases mortality and improves outcome. In addition to the conventional parameters (eg, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, urine output, and central venous pressure), biomarkers and noninvasive methods of measuring cardiac output are available to monitor and treat shock. This article emphasizes how fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of shock resuscitation, although the choice and amount of fluid may vary based on the cause of shock. Other emerging treatments for shock (ie, temperature control, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation/ventricular assist devices) are also 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.