ReviewDer Anaesthesist2014
[Fluid resuscitation in hemorrhage].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Acute life-threatening hemorrhage : Diagnostic workup and treatment possibilities are constantly improving].Der Internist · 2017Article
- [Anaesthesia procedures and invasive vascular access in severely injured patients at trauma room admission in Germany : An online survey].Der Anaesthesist · 2017Article
- [S3 guidelines on volume therapy: Comments on publication 2014].Der Anaesthesist · 2015Article
- [CVP - farewell? Please don't! : Comments on the S3 guidelines on "intravascular volume therapy in adults"].Der Anaesthesist · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How fluid resuscitation has to be performed for acute hemorrhage situations is still controversially discussed. Although the forced administration of crystalloids and colloids has been and still is practiced, nowadays there are good arguments that a cautious infusion of crystalloids may be initially sufficient. Saline should no longer be used for fluid resuscitation. The main argument for cautious fluid resuscitation is that no large prospective randomized clinical trials exist which have provided evidence of improved survival when fluid resuscitation is applied in an aggressive manner. The explanation that no positive effect has so far been observed is that fluid resuscitation is thought to boost bleeding by increasing blood pressure and dilutional coagulopathy. Nevertheless, national and international guidelines recommend that fluid resuscitation should be applied at the latest when hemorrhage causes hemodynamic instability. Consideration should be given to the fact that damage control resuscitation per se will neither improve already reduced tissue perfusion nor hemostasis. In acute and possibly rapidly progressing hypovolemic shock, colloids can be used. The third and fourth generations of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) are safe and effective if used correctly and within prescribed limits. If fluid resuscitation is applied with ongoing re-evaluation of the parameters which determine oxygen supply, it should be possible to keep fluid resuscitation restricted without causing undesirable side effects and also to administer a sufficient quantity so that survival of patients is ensured.
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.