ArticleScars, burns & healing
Albumin resuscitation in burns: a hybrid regime to mitigate fluid creep.
Article in Scars, burns & healing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of Albumin Administration on Mortality and Resuscitation Volume in Burn Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2025Review
- The Accuracy of Prehospital Fluid Resuscitation of Burn Patients: A Systematic Review.European burn journal · 2022Review
- Scars, Burns and Healing.Scars, burns & healingArticle
- Colloid resuscitation in burns: controversies and perspectives.Scars, burns & healingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlobally, many burns units moved away from colloid resuscitation in response to the Cochrane review (1998). Recent literature has introduced the concept of fluid creep: patients receiving volumes far in excess of the upper limit of the Parkland formula. The Cochrane review has been widely criticised, however, and we continued to use 4.5% human albumin solution after 8 h of crystalloid as a hybrid of Parkland and Muir & Barclay's regime.
methodsAdult patients ⩾15% TBSA were identified from data prospectively entered into our database over a 5-year period (2003-2008). Medical notes and intensive care charts were reviewed comparing volumes of fluids received with requirement estimates. Adverse events were also documented.
resultsA total of 72 cases with 34 sets of intensive care charts were analysed. Mean TBSA was 35.2% (range, 15-95%). A total of 75% survived; 3% were haemofiltered. Forty-one percent of patients were resuscitated using the Parkland formula alone, while 59% switched at 8 h post burn to the Muir and Barclay formula (Hybrid group). There was a significantly greater TBSA in the Hybrid group, but they received significantly less fluid volumes than the Parkland group (
conclusionOur patients still demonstrate fluid creep, but to a lesser extent than previously reported. Fluid creep has been mitigated but not eliminated through this strategy.
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.