Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27876084›Full record

Trial reportTrials2016

A trial to determine whether septic shock-reversal is quicker in pediatric patients randomized to an early goal-directed fluid-sparing strategy versus usual care (SQUEEZE): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Melissa J Parker, Lehana Thabane, Alison Fox-Robichaud, Patricia Liaw, Karen Choong, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT01973907 phase3completednot on this map

Pilot Study for the SQUEEZE Trial: a Trial to Determine Whether Septic Shock Reversal is Quicker in Pediatric Patients Randomized to an Early Goal Directed Fluid-sparing Strategy vs. Usual Care (SQUEEZE)

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster Children's HospitalRan2014 to 2016Enrolled53ConditionsSeptic ShockArmsFluid Sparing Resuscitation Strategy
NCT03080038 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

SQUEEZE Trial: A Trial to Determine Whether Septic Shock Reversal is Quicker in Pediatric Patients Randomized to an Early Goal Directed Fluid Sparing Strategy vs. Usual Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2017 to 2021Enrolled406ConditionsSeptic ShockArmsFluid Sparing Resuscitation Strategy
NCT06478797 phase2unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Adrenaline in Early Sepsis Resuscitation in Children- A Randomised Controlled Pilot Study in the Emergency Department (ANDES CHILD)

TypeinterventionalSponsorNATALIA LOPERA MUNERARan2024 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsSepsisArmsFluid, Adrenalin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Study to Compare Ultrasound-guided and Clinically Guided Fluid Management in Children with Septic Shock.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Paediatric Life Support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021
    Review
  20. Pragmatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced Versus Normal Saline Fluid in Sepsis: The PRoMPT BOLUS Randomized Controlled Trial Pilot Feasibility Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2019
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa J ParkerDivision of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster Children's Hospital and McMaster University, HSC 3E-20,1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. parkermj@mcmaster.ca.
Lehana ThabaneDivision of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster Children's Hospital and McMaster University, HSC 3E-20,1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Alison Fox-RobichaudDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, DBRI, Rm C5-106 and 107, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON, L8L 2X2, Canada.
Patricia LiawDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, DBRI, Rm C5-106 and 107, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON, L8L 2X2, Canada.
Karen ChoongDivision of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, McMaster Children's Hospital and McMaster University, HSC 3E-20,1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group
McMaster Children's Hospital · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent pediatric septic shock resuscitation guidelines from the American College of Critical Care Medicine focus on the early and goal-directed administration of intravascular fluid followed by vasoactive medication infusions for persistent and fluid-refractory shock. However, accumulating adult and pediatric data suggest that excessive fluid administration is associated with worse patient outcomes and even increased risk of death. The optimal amount of intravascular fluid required in early pediatric septic shock resuscitation prior to the initiation of vasoactive support remains unanswered. METHODS/

designThe SQUEEZE Pilot Trial is a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, open-label, prospective pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants are children aged 29 days to under 18 years with suspected or confirmed septic shock and a need for ongoing resuscitation. Eligible participants are enrolled under an exception to consent process and randomly assigned via concealed allocation to either the Usual Care (control) or Fluid Sparing (intervention) resuscitation strategy. The primary objective of this pilot trial is to determine feasibility, based on the ability to enroll participants and to adhere to the study protocol. The primary outcome measure by which success will be determined is participant enrollment rate ("pass" defined as at least two participants/site/month, recognizing that enrollment may be slower during the run-in phase). Secondary objectives include assessing (1) appropriateness of eligibility criteria, and (2) completeness of clinical outcomes to inform the endpoints for the planned multisite trial. To support the nested translational study, SQUEEZE-D, we will also evaluate the feasibility of describing cell-free DNA (a procoagulant molecule with prognostic utility) in blood samples obtained from children enrolled into the SQUEEZE Pilot Trial at baseline and at 24 h. DISCUSSION: The optimal degree of fluid resuscitation and the timing of initiation of vasoactive support in order to achieve recommended therapeutic targets in children with septic shock remains unanswered. No prospective study to date has examined this important question for children in developed countries including Canada. Recruitment for the SQUEEZE Pilot Trial opened on 6 January 2014. Findings will inform the feasibility of the planned multicenter trial to answer our overall research question.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01973907 , registered on 23 October 2013.

Indexed as

Time-to-TreatmentAdolescentAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolClinical ProtocolsFemaleFluid TherapyHemodynamicsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleOntarioPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesVasoconstrictor AgentsFluid therapyPediatricsResuscitationSepsisShock

Identifiers

PMID27876084
PMCPMC5120449
OpenAlexW2553090955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.