ReviewDisaster and military medicine2017
Fluid resuscitation in haemorrhagic shock in combat casualties.
Review in Disaster and military 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of Hemorrhagic Shock: Physiology Approach, Timing and Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- Contemporary resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock: What will the future hold?American journal of surgery · 2020Review
- Fresh frozen plasma attenuates lung injury in a novel model of prolonged hypotensive resuscitation.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2020Article
- Chinese expert consensus on the treatment of modern combat-related spinal injuries.Military Medical Research · 2019Article
- Chinese expert consensus on echelons treatment of pelvic fractures in modern war.Military Medical Research · 2018Article
- Regenerative medicine and war: a front-line focus for UK defence.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This brief update reviews the recent literature available on fluid resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock and considers the applicability of this evidence for use in resuscitation of combat casualties in the combat casualty care (CCC) environment. A number of changes need to be incorporated in the CCC guidelines: (1) dried plasma (DP) is added as an option when other blood components or whole blood are not available; (2) the wording is clarified to emphasize that Hetastarch is a less desirable option than whole blood, blood components, or DP and should be used only when these preferred options are not available; (3) the use of blood products in certain tactical field care settings where this option might be feasible (FSC, GH) is discussed; (4) 1:1:1 damage control resuscitation (DCR) with plasma: packed red blood cells (PRBC): platelets is preferred to 1:1 DCR with plasma: PRBC when platelets are available; and (5) the 30-min wait between increments of resuscitation fluid administered to achieve clinical improvement or target blood pressure has been eliminated. Also included is an order of precedence for resuscitation fluid options. There should be an emphasis on hypotensive resuscitation in order to minimize (1) interference with the body's hemostatic response and (2) the risk of complications of over resuscitation. Hetastarch is retained as the preferred option over crystalloids when blood products are not available because of its smaller volume and the potential for long evacuations in the military setting.
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.