Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29438568›Full record

ReviewTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene2017

Haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings.

David Misango, Rajyabardhan Pattnaik, Tim Baker, Martin W Dünser, Arjen M Dondorp, Marcus J Schultz, Global Intensive Care Working Group, of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Bangkok, Thailand

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. NCell death discovery · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Circulatory shock in adults in emergency department.Turkish journal of emergency medicine
    Review
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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 7 countries.

David MisangoDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rajyabardhan PattnaikDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela, Sundargarh, Odisha, India.
Tim BakerDepartment of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Surgical Services, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Martin W DünserDepartment of Critical Care, University College of London Hospital, London, UK.
Arjen M DondorpMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, 420/6 Rajvithi Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Marcus J SchultzMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, 420/6 Rajvithi Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
Global Intensive Care Working Group
of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Bangkok, Thailand
Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi · KEAngkor Hospital for Children · KHIspat General Hospital · INJohannes Kepler University of Linz · ATKarolinska University Hospital · SEMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Critical CareDeveloping CountriesEarly DiagnosisEvidence-Based MedicineFluid TherapyGuidelines as TopicHemodynamicsHumansInternational CooperationSepsisShock, Septic

Identifiers

PMID29438568
PMCPMC5914406
OpenAlexW2789667526

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.