Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28091757›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2017

[Renal protection in intensive care : Myths and facts].

S John

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

S JohnMedizinische Klinik 4, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Klinikum Nürnberg-Süd, 90471, Nürnberg, Deutschland. Stefan.John@klinikum-nuernberg.de.
Nuremberg Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and severe complication in patients on the intensive care unit with a significant impact on patient mortality, morbidity and costs of care; therefore, renal protective therapy is most important in these severely ill patients. AIM OF THE REVIEW: Many renal protective strategies have been postulated during the last decades, which are sometimes still in place as a kind of "myth" but which are not always proven by evidence-based "facts". The aim of this review is therefore to question and compare some of these "myths" with the available "facts". RECENT

findingsMost important for renal protection is the early identification of patients at risk for AKI or with acute kidney damage before renal function deteriorates further. A stage-based management of AKI comprises more general measures, such as discontinuation of nephrotoxic agents and adjustment of diuretic doses but most importantly early hemodynamic stabilization with crystalloid volume replacement solutions and vasopressors, such as noradrenaline. The aim is to ensure optimal renal perfusion and perfusion pressure. Patients with known arterial hypertension potentially need higher perfusion pressures. Large amounts of hyperchloremic solutions should be avoided. Volume overload and renal vasodilatory substances can also lead to further deterioration of kidney function. There is still no specific pharmacological therapy for renal protection.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryCritical CareFluid TherapyHumansKidney Function TestsRenal CirculationRenal Replacement TherapySepsisAcute kidney injuryFluid therapyHemodynamicsSepsisVasopressors

Identifiers

PMID28091757
OpenAlexW2593839379

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.