Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23890518›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2013

Re-evaluating currently available data and suggestions for planning randomised controlled studies regarding the use of hydroxyethyl starch in critically ill patients - a multidisciplinary statement.

Patrick Meybohm, Hugo Van Aken, Andrea De Gasperi, Stefan De Hert, Giorgio Della Rocca, Armand R J Girbes, Hans Gombotz, Bertrand Guidet, Walter Hasibeder, Markus W Hollmann and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. A Prospective Observational Study of Rational Fluid Therapy in Asian Intensive Care Units: Another Puzzle Piece in Fluid Therapy.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Understanding the Harms of HES: A Review of the Evidence to Date.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2019
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Controversies in fluid therapy: Type, dose and toxicity.World journal of critical care medicine · 2014
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Use of hydroxyethyl starch in critically ill patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 14 institutions in 8 countries.

Patrick Meybohm
Hugo Van Aken
Andrea De Gasperi
Stefan De Hert
Giorgio Della Rocca
Armand R J Girbes
Hans Gombotz
Bertrand Guidet
Walter Hasibeder
Markus W Hollmann
Can Ince
Matthias Jacob
Peter Kranke
Sibylle Kozek-Langenecker
Stephan Alexander Loer
Claude Martin
Martin Siegemund
Christian Wunder
Kai Zacharowski
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLGoethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEAcademic Medical Center · NLAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda · ITErasmus MC · NLGhent University Hospital · BEInternational Trauma Anesthesia and Critical Care Society · USKantonsspital Baden · CHKrankenhaus der Elisabethinen · ATOrdensklinikum Linz Barmherzige Schwestern · ATSorbonne Université · FRUniversity Hospital Münster · DEUniversity of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHydroxyethyl starch (HES) is a commonly used colloid in critically ill patients. However, its safety has been questioned in recent studies and meta-analyses.

methodsWe re-evaluated prospective randomised controlled trials (RCT) from four meta-analyses published in 2013 that compared the effect of HES with crystalloids in critically ill patients, focusing on the adherence to 'presumably correct indication'. Regarding the definition of 'presumably correct indication', studies were checked for the following six criteria (maximum six points): short time interval from shock to randomisation (<6 h), restricted use for initial volume resuscitation, use of any consistent algorithm for haemodynamic stabilisation, reproducible indicators of hypovolaemia, maximum dose of HES, and exclusion of patients with pre-existing renal failure or renal replacement therapy.

resultsDuration of fluid administration ranged from 90 min up to a maximum of 90 days. Four studies considered follow-up until 90-day mortality, three studies 28-/30-day mortality, whereas four studies reported only early mortality. Included studies showed a large heterogeneity of the indication score ranging between 1 and 4 points with a median (25%; 75% quartile) of 4 (2; 4).

conclusionsThe most important question, whether or not HES may be harmful when it is limited to immediate haemodynamic stabilisation, cannot be answered yet in the absence of any study sufficiently addressing this question. In order to overcome the limitations of most of the previous studies, we now suggest an algorithm emphasising the strict indication of HES. Additionally, we give a list of suggestions that should be adequately considered in any prospective RCT in the field of acute volume resuscitation in critically ill patients.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessHemodynamicsHumansHydroxyethyl Starch DerivativesMeta-Analysis as TopicPatient SafetyProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStatistics as TopicTime FactorsHydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives

Identifiers

PMID23890518
PMCPMC4056523
OpenAlexW2156450466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.