ReviewJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology2014
Hydroxyeyhyl starch: Controversies revisited.
Review in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthesis of Zwitterionic and Trehalose Polymers with Variable Degradation Rates and Stabilization of Insulin.Biomacromolecules · 2020Article
- Intravenous Fluid of Choice in Major Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review.Critical care research and practice · 2020Review
- Relationship between a perioperative intravenous fluid administration strategy and acute kidney injury following off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: an observational study.Critical care (London, England) · 2015Observational
- Phenylephrine infusion for spinal-induced hypotension in elective cesarean delivery: Does preload make a difference?Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- Erratum: Hydroxyeyhyl starch: Controversies revisited.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) family has been one of the cornerstones in fluid management for over four decades. Recent evidence from clinical studies and meta-analyses has raised few concerns about the safety of these fluids, especially in certain subpopulations of patients. High-quality clinical trials and meta-analyses have emphasized nephrotoxic effects, increased risk of bleeding, and a trend toward higher mortality in these patients after the use of HES solutions. Scientific evidence was derived from international guidelines, aggregated research literature, and opinion-based evidence was obtained from surveys and other activities (e.g., internet postings). On critical analysis of the current data available, it can be summarized that further large scale trials are still indicated before HES can be discarded.
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.