Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28929101›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2017

Current Trends in Volume Replacement Therapy and the Use of Synthetic Colloids in Small Animals-An Internet-Based Survey (2016).

Ivayla D Yozova, Judith Howard, Nadja E Sigrist, Katja-Nicole Adamik

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Analysis of blood composition by porcine breeding cycle.Veterinary medicine and science · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Colloids Yes or No? - a "Gretchen Question" Answered.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Feline comorbidities: What do we really know about feline triaditis?Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2020
    Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ivayla D YozovaInstitute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Judith HowardDiagnostic Clinical Laboratory, Vetsuisse Faculty, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nadja E SigristVetsuisse Faculty, Department of Small Animal Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Katja-Nicole AdamikEmergency and Critical Care Section, Small Animal Clinic, Vetsuisse Faculty, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHMassey University · NZUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of synthetic colloids (SCs), particularly hydroxyethyl starch (HES), in people has changed in recent years following new evidence raising concerns about their efficacy and safety. Although fluid therapy guidelines for small animals are often extrapolated from human medicine, little information exists on current practice in veterinary medicine. The objective of the present study was to investigate current fluid selection, use of plasma volume expanders including SCs, and recent changes in their use in small animal practice. An Internet-based survey was conducted, inviting veterinarians to report their practices in fluid resuscitation and colloid osmotic pressure support, their choice of SC, and perceived adverse effects and contraindications associated with SC use. There were 1,134 respondents from 42 countries, including 46% general practitioners and 38% diplomates. Isotonic crystalloids, HES, and hypertonic saline were chosen by most respondents for fluid resuscitation, and HES by 75% of respondents for colloid osmotic support. Dextran and gelatin were used by some European respondents. Human serum albumin was used more than canine albumin but 45% of respondents, particularly those from Australia and New Zealand, used no albumin product. The majority (70%) of respondents changed their practice regarding SCs in recent years (mostly by limiting their use), largely due to safety concerns. However, only 27% of respondents worked in an institution that had a general policy on SC use. Impaired renal function, coagulopathy, and hypertension were most often considered contraindications; impaired coagulation tests and increased respiratory rate were the most frequently perceived adverse effects. The use of HES remains widespread practice in small animals, regardless of geographic location. Nevertheless, awareness of safety issues and restrictions on the use of SCs imposed in human medicine seems to have prompted a decrease in use of SCs by veterinarians. Given the paucity of evidence regarding efficacy and safety, and differences in cohorts between human and veterinary critical care patients, studies are needed to establish evidence-based guidelines specific for dogs and cats.

Indexed as

dextranfluid therapygelatinhydroxyethyl starchplasma expanderssynthetic colloids

Identifiers

PMID28929101
PMCPMC5591339
OpenAlexW2752024323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.