Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30015638›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in anaesthesiology2018

Fluid management concepts for severe neurological illness: an overview.

Boris D Heifets, Pedro Tanaka, Mark A Burbridge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in anaesthesiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. [Clinical efficacy of restrictive fluid management in patients with severe traumatic brain injury].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2021
    Article
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

3 authors.

Boris D HeifetsDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Pedro Tanaka
Mark A Burbridge

Funding

Neural circuitry and synaptic physiology underlying MDMA's prosocial effectK08MH110610 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HEIFETS, BORIS DOV · 2017 to 2020
$780k
NIMH NIH HHS K08 MH110610
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe acute care of a patient with severe neurological injury is organized around one relatively straightforward goal: avoid brain ischemia. A coherent strategy for fluid management in these patients has been particularly elusive, and a well considered fluid management strategy is essential for patients with critical neurological illness. RECENT

findingsIn this review, several gaps in our collective knowledge are summarized, including a rigorous definition of volume status that can be practically measured; an understanding of how electrolyte derangements interact with therapy; a measurable endpoint against which we can titrate our patients' fluid balance; and agreement on the composition of fluid we should give in various clinical contexts. SUMMARY: As the possibility grows closer that we can monitor the physiological parameters with direct relevance for neurological outcomes and the various complications associated with neurocritical illness, we may finally move away from static therapy recommendations, and toward individualized, precise therapy. Although we believe therapy should ultimately be individualized rather than standardized, it is clear that the monitoring tools and analytical methods used ought to be standardized to facilitate appropriately powered, prospective clinical outcome trials.

Indexed as

Blood VolumeCritical CareFluid TherapyHumansNervous System Diseases

Identifiers

PMID30015638
PMCPMC6309671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.