ReviewTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene2017
Haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings.
Review in Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for fluid management of adults with sepsis in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of guidelines.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Epidemiology and outcomes of critically ill patients in the emergency department of a tertiary teaching hospital in Rwanda.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Capillary Refill Time as a Part of Routine Physical Examination in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Vasoactive Therapy: A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Norepinephrine may improve survival of septic shock patients in a low-resource setting: a proof-of-concept study on feasibility and efficacy outside the Intensive Care Unit.Pathogens and global health · 2022Article
- NCell death discovery · 2022Article
- Utilisation of peripheral vasopressor medications and extravasation events among critically ill patients in Rwanda: A prospective cohort study.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2022Article
- Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.Intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- Narrative review: clinical assessment of peripheral tissue perfusion in septic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2019Review
- Circulatory shock in adults in emergency department.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings are largely lacking. Methods: A task force of six international experts in critical care medicine, all of them members of the Global Intensive Care Working Group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and with extensive bedside experience in resource-limited intensive care units, reviewed the literature and provided recommendations regarding haemodynamic assessment and support, keeping aspects of efficacy and effectiveness, availability and feasibility and affordability and safety in mind. Results: We suggest using capillary refill time, skin mottling scores and skin temperature gradients; suggest a passive leg raise test to guide fluid resuscitation; recommend crystalloid solutions as the initial fluid of choice; recommend initial fluid resuscitation with 30 ml/kg in the first 3 h, but with extreme caution in settings where there is a lack of mechanical ventilation; recommend against an early start of vasopressors; suggest starting a vasopressor in patients with persistent hypotension after initial fluid resuscitation with at least 30 ml/kg, but earlier when there is lack of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation; recommend using norepinephrine (noradrenaline) as a first-line vasopressor; suggest starting an inotrope with persistence of plasma lactate >2 mmol/L or persistence of skin mottling or prolonged capillary refill time when plasma lactate cannot be measured, and only after initial fluid resuscitation; suggest the use of dobutamine as a first-line inotrope; recommend administering vasopressors through a central venous line and suggest administering vasopressors and inotropes via a central venous line using a syringe or infusion pump when available. Conclusion: Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings have been developed by a task force of six international experts in critical care medicine with extensive practical experience in resource-limited settings.
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.