ReviewWiener klinische Wochenschrift2014
Reporting bias in trials of volume resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch.
Review in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conservative fluid resuscitation protocol does not reduce the incidence of reoperation for bleeding after emergency CABG.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Understanding the Harms of HES: A Review of the Evidence to Date.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2019Review
- Acute kidney injury in critically burned patients treated with hydroxyethyl starch: a response to Sánchez-Sánchez et al.Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2017Article
- Comparison of hydroxyethyl starch regulatory summaries from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2017Article
- Resuscitation with polymeric plasma substitutes is permissive for systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis in multiply injured patients: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2016Article
- Concerns over use of hydroxyethyl starch solutions.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014Article
- Beautiful small: Misleading large randomized controlled trials? The example of colloids for volume resuscitation.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The possibility of renal damage by hydroxyethyl starch has become the focus of intensive dispute based on the findings of published large trials. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze outcome reporting bias in the literature on volume resuscitation, focusing on selective outcome reporting in published randomized and observational trials with "modern" hydroxyethyl starch as therapeutic intervention. Three recent publications claimed to confirm renal safety of hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 for indications in severe sepsis, trauma, and critical illness, respectively. Selective outcome reporting was identified in these studies including underreporting of side effects and change of primary study outcomes. In conclusion, selective outcome reporting bias is identified in recent publications of clinical trials on volume resuscitation with HES.
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.