SynthesisScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2017
The haemodynamic dilemma in emergency care: Is fluid responsiveness the answer? A systematic review.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in Hemodynamic Response to Passive Leg Raising Tests during the Day in Healthy Individuals: The Question of Normovolemia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The time cost of physiologically ineffective intravenous fluids in the emergency department: an observational pilot study employing wearable Doppler ultrasound.Journal of intensive care · 2023Article
- Can passive leg raise predict the response to fluid resuscitation in ED?BMC emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Shock Management Without Formal Fluid Responsiveness Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Fluid Responsiveness and Its Outcomes.Journal of acute medicine · 2021Article
- The future of acute and emergency care.Future healthcare journal · 2021Article
- Emergency department non-invasive cardiac output study (EDNICO): an accuracy study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020Observational
- What is the evidence base for fluid resuscitation in acute medicine? .Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluid therapy is a common and crucial treatment in the emergency department (ED). While fluid responsiveness seems to be a promising method to titrate fluid therapy, the evidence for its value in ED is unclear. We aim to synthesise the existing literature investigating fluid responsiveness in ED.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies published from 1946 to present.
resultsA total of 249 publications were retrieved of which 22 studies underwent full-text review and eight relevant studies were identified. Only 3 studies addressed clinical outcomes - including 2 randomised controlled trials and one feasibility study. Five articles evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of fluid responsiveness techniques in ED. Due to marked heterogeneity, it was not possible to combine results in a meta-analysis.
conclusionHigh quality, adequately powered outcome studies are still lacking, so the place of fluid responsiveness in ED remains undefined. Future studies should have standardisation of patient groups, the target response and the underpinning theoretic concept of fluid responsiveness. The value of a fluid responsiveness based fluid resuscitation protocol needs to be established in a clinical trial.
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.