Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24834399›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2014

Controversies in fluid therapy: Type, dose and toxicity.

Robert C McDermid, Karthik Raghunathan, Adam Romanovsky, Andrew D Shaw, Sean M Bagshaw

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05239286 (Comparison Between Conventional Fluid Management and Plethysmographic Variability Index Based Goal Directed Fluid Management in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgeries in Prone Position; A Randomized Control Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT05239286 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Between Conventional Fluid Management and Plethysmographic Variability Index Based Goal Directed Fluid Management in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgeries in Prone Position; A Randomized Control Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2022 to 2022Enrolled66ConditionsFluid Management During Elective Spine SurgeriesArmsGeneral anaesthesia, Conventional fluid managment, PVI dependant goal directed fluid therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert C McDermidRobert C McDermid, Adam Romanovsky, Sean M Bagshaw, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G2B7, Canada.
Karthik RaghunathanRobert C McDermid, Adam Romanovsky, Sean M Bagshaw, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G2B7, Canada.
Adam RomanovskyRobert C McDermid, Adam Romanovsky, Sean M Bagshaw, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G2B7, Canada.
Andrew D ShawRobert C McDermid, Adam Romanovsky, Sean M Bagshaw, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G2B7, Canada.
Sean M BagshawRobert C McDermid, Adam Romanovsky, Sean M Bagshaw, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G2B7, Canada.
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluid therapy is perhaps the most common intervention received by acutely ill hospitalized patients; however, a number of critical questions on the efficacy and safety of the type and dose remain. In this review, recent insights derived from randomized trials in terms of fluid type, dose and toxicity are discussed. We contend that the prescription of fluid therapy is context-specific and that any fluid can be harmful if administered inappropriately. When contrasting ''crystalloid vs colloid'', differences in efficacy are modest but differences in safety are significant. Differences in chloride load and strong ion difference across solutions appear to be clinically important. Phases of fluid therapy in acutely ill patients are recognized, including acute resuscitation, maintaining homeostasis, and recovery phases. Quantitative toxicity (fluid overload) is associated with adverse outcomes and can be mitigated when fluid therapy based on functional hemodynamic parameters that predict volume responsiveness and minimization of non-essential fluid. Qualitative toxicity (fluid type), in particular for iatrogenic acute kidney injury and metabolic acidosis, remain a concern for synthetic colloids and isotonic saline, respectively. Physiologically balanced crystalloids may be the ''default'' fluid for acutely ill patients and the role for colloids, in particular hydroxyethyl starch, is increasingly unclear. We contend the prescription of fluid therapy is analogous to the prescription of any drug used in critically ill patients.

Indexed as

ColloidCritical illnessCrystalloidFluid therapyPeri-operativeResuscitationSalineToxicity

Identifiers

PMID24834399
PMCPMC4021151
OpenAlexW2050915877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.