ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2013
Debate on HES safety is important, but must be based on facts.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- ESTES guidelines: acute mesenteric ischaemia.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2016Guideline
- Renal Safety of Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 After Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Starch Wars-New Episodes of the Saga. Changes in Regulations on Hydroxyethyl Starch in the European Union.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2018Review
- Twisting and ignoring facts on hydroxyethyl starch is not very helpful.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Scandinavian Starch for Severe Sepsis / Septic Shock (6S) trial showed that hydroxyethyl starch was harmful compared to Ringer's acetate in patients with severe sepsis when used according to clinical practice and in alignment with the recommendations by the manufactures and authorities. The different interpretation by Chapell and Jacob's rely on misreading of the trial publication and is not supported by the trial data. Several hypotheses may be made regarding less harmful ways of using HES in critically ill patients, but clinicians, guideline committee members and authorities need to acknowledge that such safer ways have not yet been identified.
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.