ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2018
What is the evidence base for fluid resuscitation in acute medicine? .
Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Fluid Resuscitation in Adults with Sepsis Who Are Not Mechanically Ventilated: a Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Assessing venous congestion in critical illness: advantages of the inferior vena cava shape change index over diameter.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- VExUS: common misconceptions, clinical use and future directions.The ultrasound journal · 2024Article
- Investigating the impact of fluid status on the ultrasound assessment of muscle quantity and quality in the diagnosis of sarcopenia - a multidimensional cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Preparing for COVID-19-related Drug Shortages.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2020Article
- The impact of the NHS electronic-alert system on the recognition and management of acute kidney injury in acute medicine.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Intravenous fluids are commonly prescribed but uncertainty remains about how to assess when fluids are required and how much to give, particularly in our multimorbid, polymedicated and ageing population. Furthermore, studies have noted that fluid resuscitation can be harmful even if clinical evidence of hypervolaemia is not present. Two recent guidelines have acknowledged a limited evidence base to guide fluid assessment. A recommended means to assess hypovolaemia includes assessment of fluid responsiveness. Fluid responsiveness is a rise in stroke volume following an increase in preload, achieved using a fluid challenge or a passive leg raise. However, the means of defining fluid responsiveness and its ability to identify patients who would benefit from fluid resuscitation is currently unclear. This review discusses the current guidelines about, and the evidence base for the provision of, intravenous fluids in the acutely unwell medical patient. It highlights how little evidence is available to guide medical practice.
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.