ReviewCritical care (London, England)2017
Personalised fluid resuscitation in the ICU: still a fluid concept?
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Balanced crystalloid versus saline for resuscitation in pediatric septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- APASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of acute kidney injury in acute-on-chronic liver failure.Hepatology international · 2024Guideline
- The effect of plasma versus crystalloids on intravascular volume, tissue perfusion and tissue oxygenation: a randomized controlled trial in a human endotoxemia model.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Trial
- Bioelectrical impedance analysis-guided fluid management promotes primary fascial closure after open abdomen: a randomized controlled trial.Military Medical Research · 2021Trial
- Personalized fluid resuscitation may reduce mortality in septic shock as compared with fixed-volume approach - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Article
- Perioperative micro-arterial function and extravasation in cytoreductive ovarian cancer surgery: an observational study.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Article
- Precision fluid and vasoactive drug therapy for critically ill patients.Pharmacotherapy · 2023Review
- Associations between fluid overload and outcomes in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a retrospective observational study.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
- Hyperoncotic Albumin Solution in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Patients.Blood purification · 2022Article
- Ulinastatin as an Adjuvant Therapy to Restricting Volumes of Resuscitation Fluid Strategy for Patients with Septic Shock after Initial Management.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- Intravenous Drip of Somatostatin Followed by Restricted Fluid Resuscitation to Treat Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
- Heart failure and sepsis: practical recommendations for the optimal management.Heart failure reviews · 2020Review
- Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: the great 30 mL per kg hoax.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Endothelial glycocalyx in acute care surgery - what anaesthesiologists need to know for clinical practice.BMC anesthesiology · 2019Review
- Anesthesia-Associated Relative Hypovolemia: Mechanisms, Monitoring, and Treatment Considerations.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The administration of intravenous fluid to critically ill patients is one of the most common, but also one of the most fiercely debated, interventions in intensive care medicine. Even though many thousands of patients have been enrolled in large trials of alternative fluid strategies, consensus remains elusive and practice is widely variable. Critically ill patients are significantly heterogeneous, making a one size fits all approach unlikely to be successful.New data from basic, animal, and clinical research suggest that fluid resuscitation could be associated with significant harm. There are several important limitations and concerns regarding fluid bolus therapy as it is currently being used in clinical practice. These include, but are not limited to: the lack of an agreed definition; limited and short-lived physiological effects; no evidence of an effect on relevant patient outcomes; and the potential to contribute to fluid overload, specifically when fluid responsiveness is not assessed and when targets and safety limits are not used.Fluid administration in critically ill patients requires clinicians to integrate abnormal physiological parameters into a clinical decision-making model that also incorporates the likely diagnosis and the likely risk or benefit in the specific patient's context. Personalised fluid resuscitation requires careful attention to the mnemonic CIT TAIT: context, indication, targets, timing, amount of fluid, infusion strategy, and type of fluid.The research agenda should focus on experimental and clinical studies to: improve our understanding of the physiological effects of fluid infusion, e.g. on the glycocalyx; evaluate new types of fluids; evaluate novel fluid minimisation protocols; study the effects of a no-fluid strategy for selected patients and scenarios; and compare fluid therapy with other interventions. The adaptive platform trial design may provide us with the tools to evaluate these types of interventions in the intrinsically heterogeneous intensive care unit population, accounting for the explicit assumption that treatment effects may be heterogeneous.
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.