ReviewCritical care (London, England)2014
Conservative fluid therapy in septic shock: an example of targeted therapeutic minimization.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03296319 (Echocardiography Guided Fluid Resuscitation in Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Echocardiography Guided Fluid Resuscitation in Critically Ill Patients
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early goal-directed resuscitation for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Early Liberal Fluid Therapy for Sepsis Patients Is Not Harmful: Hydrophobia Is Unwarranted but Drink Responsibly.Critical care medicine · 2016Review
- Respiratory variation in carotid peak systolic velocity predicts volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: a prospective cohort study.Critical ultrasound journal · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous fluids (IVFs) represent a basic therapeutic intervention utilized in septic shock. Unfortunately, the optimal method for administering IVFs to maximize patient outcomes is unknown. A meta-analysis of four randomized trials of goal-directed therapy did not demonstrate a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio 0.609; 95% confidence interval 0.363 to 1.020; P = 0.059), whereas 18 trials with historical controls showed a significant increase in survival (odds ratio 0.580; 95% confidence interval 0.501 to 0.672; P < 0.0001). Based on these data, clinicians should be aware of the potential for harm due to the excessive administration of IVFs to patients with septic shock.
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.