The forgotten value of the clinical examination to individualize and guide fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.Intensive care medicine · 2021
   Article
2. Back to Basics: Recognition of Sepsis with New Definition.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019
   Review
3. Decision-making in the detection and management of patients with sepsis in resource-limited settings: the importance of clinical examination.Critical care (London, England) · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Effect of an Early Resuscitation Protocol on In-hospital Mortality Among Adults With Sepsis and Hypotension: A Randomized Clinical Trial.2017

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as