ReviewCureus2016
The Use of Fluids in Sepsis.
Review in Cureus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians' knowledge and sepsis guide implementation in tertiary care hospitals in China.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Sepsis-associated brain injury: underlying mechanisms and potential therapeutic strategies for acute and long-term cognitive impairments.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2022Review
- Fluid Administration in Emergency Room Limited by Lung Ultrasound in Patients with Sepsis: Protocol for a Prospective Phase II Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- The Role of Glucocorticoid Receptor and Oxytocin Receptor in the Septic Heart in a Clinically Relevant, Resuscitated Porcine Model With Underlying Atherosclerosis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Article
- Sepsis: The evolution in definition, pathophysiology, and management.SAGE open medicine · 2019Review
- Targeting the Blood-Brain Barrier to Prevent Sepsis-Associated Cognitive Impairment.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response to severe infection causing significant morbidity and mortality that costs the health care system $20.3 billion annually within the United States. It is well established that fluid resuscitation is a central component of sepsis management; however, to date there is no consensus as to the ideal composition of fluid used for resuscitation. In this review, we discuss the progression of clinical research comparing various fluids, as well as the historical background behind fluid selection for volume resuscitation. We conclude that the use of balanced fluids, such as Ringer's Lactate, seems very promising but further research is needed to confirm their role.
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.