ArticleBurns & trauma2018
An objective measure for the assessment and management of fluid shifts in acute major burns.
Article in Burns & trauma, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ultrasound gap in de-resuscitation trials: A systematic review of physiological assessment deficits.The ultrasound journal · 2026Article
- Effect of a 6-Week Structured Exercise Intervention on TNF-α During the Chronic Recovery Phase of a Burn Injury Compared to Regular Daily Activities: A Pilot Randomised Cross-Over Trial.European burn journal · 2026Article
- Reversibility of Immune Dysfunction Following Pediatric Thermal Injury.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Article
- Status of adult inpatient burn rehabilitation in Europe: Are we neglecting metabolic outcomes?Burns & trauma · 2021Article
- Bio-electrical impedance analysis for perioperative fluid evaluation in open major abdominal surgery.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMajor burns are life threatening. Fluid resuscitation is required for survival to maintain intravascular volumes and prevent hypovolemic shock. Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) has been recognised as a potential method of monitoring fluid shifts after burn and in other disease states. The aims of this study were to examine the reliability of BIS across different dressing conditions and electrode positions, establish the influence of Acticoat™ on BIS variable measures and determine the validity of whole-body BIS to assess net fluid shift in the presence of moderate to major burns.
methodsAn observational longitudinal cohort study was conducted from December 2014 to February 2016. Patients with over 15% total body surface area (TBSA) burns and injury less than 48 h were enrolled in the study. BIS triplicate measures were collected in an open wound and with an Acticoat
resultsBIS-repeated measures established BIS raw resistance (R), and predicted volume variables were reliable in any condition (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.996-0.999, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.996-0.999) without a systematic difference. Acticoat™ dressings significantly influenced all BIS-predicted volumes (
conclusionBIS may be used clinically to monitor fluid volume change in major acute burns.
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.