Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25205551›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2014

[Fluid resuscitation in hemorrhage].

M Roessler, K Bode, M Bauer

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M RoesslerZentrum Anästhesiologie, Rettungs- und Intensivmedizin, Georg-August-Universität, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland, m.roessler@med.uni-goettingen.de.
K Bode
M Bauer
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Blood SubstitutesBlood VolumeFluid TherapyHemorrhageHumansResuscitationBlood Substitutes

Identifiers

PMID25205551
OpenAlexW1914793129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.