Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26380001›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015

Efficacy of limited fluid resuscitation in patients with hemorrhagic shock: a meta-analysis.

Chenyang Duan, Tao Li, Liangming Liu

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Multiple organ dysfunction after trauma.The British journal of surgery · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chenyang DuanDepartment of Research Institute of Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Trauma, Burns and Combined Injury, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University Chongqing 400042, P. R. China.
Tao LiDepartment of Research Institute of Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Trauma, Burns and Combined Injury, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University Chongqing 400042, P. R. China.
Liangming LiuDepartment of Research Institute of Surgery, State Key Laboratory of Trauma, Burns and Combined Injury, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University Chongqing 400042, P. R. China.
Army Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundsThe objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of limited fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage compared with regular fluid resuscitation and provide strong evidences for the improvement of fluid resuscitation strategies in uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock.

methodsElectronic searches were performed using PubMed, Medline, Embase and CNKI in accordance with pre-set guidelines. Clinical trials and observation studies were included or excluded according to the criteria. The endpoints examined were mortality, hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLT), hematocrit (Hct), prothrombin Time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), base excess (BE), blood lactic acid (BLA) and the main complications, such as multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% Cl) were calculated using fixed/random effect model.

resultsThe search indentified 11 studies including 1482 subjects. 725 hemorrhagic patients were treated with limited fluid resuscitation while 757 patients undertook regular fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage. Limited fluid resuscitation had its advantage to reduce the mortality in hemorrhagic shock (RR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.56-0.81; P < 0.0001) and easily controlled the blood routine index close to normal compared with regular fluid resuscitation (Hb: MD = 13.04; 95% CI = 2.69-23.38; P = 0.01. PLT: MD = 23.16; 95% CI = 6.41-39.91; P = 0.007. Hct: MD = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.02-0.03; P < 0.00001). LFR also had shorter PT and APTT compared with RFR (PT: MD = -2.81; 95% CI = -3.44--2.17; P < 0.00001 and APTT: MD = -5.14; 95% CI = -6.16--4.12; P < 0.00001). As for blood gas analysis, LFR reduced the decrease of BE (MD = 2.48; 95% CI = 1.11-3.85; P = 0.0004) and increase of BLA (MD = -0.65; 95% CI = -0.85--0.44; P < 0.00001). Besides, LFR may also reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications (MODS: RR= 0.37; 95% CI = 0.21-0.66; P = 0.0008. ARDS: RR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.21-0.60; P < 0.0001).

conclusionThe results provide convincing evidence that support the continued investigation and use of limited fluid resuscitation during active hemorrhage in the trauma setting.

Indexed as

hemorrhagic shockLimited fluid resuscitationmortalitytrauma

Identifiers

PMID26380001
PMCPMC4565384
OpenAlexW2416146259

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.