ArticleClinical and experimental nephrology2015
Comparison of two fluid solutions for resuscitation in a rabbit model of crush syndrome.
Article in Clinical and experimental nephrology, 2015. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antioxidants (selenium and garlic) alleviated the adverse effects of tramadol on the reproductive system and oxidative stress markers in male rabbits.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Fluid resuscitation after severe trauma injury : U-shaped associations between tetrastarch dose and survival time or frequency of acute kidney failure.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020Observational
- Anti-high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) antibody attenuates kidney damage following experimental crush injury and the possible role of the tumor necrosis factor-α and c-Jun N-terminal kinase pathway.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2017Article
- Comparison of the effects of volemic reposition with 7.5% NaCl or blood in an experimental model of muscular compression and hemorrhagic shock.Revista brasileira de ortopediaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCrush syndrome is a common injury, the main characteristics of which include acute kidney injury. However, there is still lack of reliable animal model of crush syndrome, and it also remains controversial as to which type of fluid should be chosen as a more appropriate treatment option for prevention and treatment of acute kidney injury.
methodsThe rabbits were crushed at the lower limbs for 6 h with 36 times the body weight, which means the pressure of each leg was also 36 times the body weight. Fluid resuscitation was performed from 1 h prior to the end of the crush treatment until 24 h after the reperfusion. Tissue, blood and urine samples were collected at predetermined time points before and after reperfusion. Twelve rabbits in each group were taken for survival observation for 72 h.
resultsThe model group showed elevated serum creatine kinase, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and K(+) level, reduced serum Ca(2+) level and Na(+) level, and increased serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, and kidney injury molecule-1 (p < 0.05). The 0.9 % normal saline (SAL) group and SAL plus 6 % hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 SAL/HES group showed reduced serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels (p < 0.05). The SAL/HES group also showed reduced serum IL-6 and IL-10 levels (p < 0.05). The 72 h survival rate of the SAL/HES group was higher than that of the model group (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe rabbit model of crush syndrome showed clinical features consistent with those of crush syndrome. There was no significant difference in the ability of preventing AKI after a crush injury between the two fluid solutions, while SAL/HES can improve the survival rate.
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.