Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31152360›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2019

Assessing Fluid Resuscitation in Adults with Sepsis Who Are Not Mechanically Ventilated: a Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.

Adam Seccombe, Lauren McCluskey, Hannah Moorey, Daniel Lasserson, Elizabeth Sapey

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Emergency department non-invasive cardiac output study (EDNICO): an accuracy study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020
    Observational
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adam SeccombeBirmingham Acute Care Research Group, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. a.seccombe@nhs.net.
Lauren McCluskeyWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Redditch, UK.
Hannah MooreyBirmingham Acute Care Research Group, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Daniel LassersonBirmingham Acute Care Research Group, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Elizabeth SapeyBirmingham Acute Care Research Group, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFluid resuscitation is a widely used intervention that is mandated in the management of sepsis. While its use can be life-saving, its overuse is associated with harm. Despite this, the best means of assessing a need for fluid resuscitation in an acute medical setting is unclear.

objectiveTo assess studies of diagnostic tests that identify the need for fluid resuscitation in adults with sepsis, as defined by the presence of fluid responsiveness.

designProtocol registration was performed in advance (PROSPERO:CRD42017048651). Research database searches were performed alongside additional searches to identify grey literature. Diagnostic test accuracy studies that assessed any fluid assessment tool were identified independently by two authors, before data extraction and quality assessments were performed.

participantsAdults with sepsis, without intensive care organ support, who would be appropriate for admission to an acute medical unit. KEY

resultsOf the 26,841 articles that were screened, 14 studies were identified for inclusion, involving a combined total of 594 patients. Five categories of index test were identified: inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVCCI), haemodynamic change with passive leg raise, haemodynamic change with respiration, haemodynamic change with intravenous fluid administration, and static assessment tools. Due to the high level of clinical heterogeneity affecting all aspects of study design, quantitative analysis was not feasible. There was a lack of consensus on reference tests to determine fluid responsiveness.

conclusionWhile fluid resuscitation is considered a key part of the management of sepsis, evidence to support fluid assessment in awake adults is lacking. This review has highlighted a number of research recommendations that should be addressed as a matter of urgency if patient harm is to be avoided.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsAdultDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleFluid TherapyHumansHypovolemiaMaleMiddle AgedRespiration, ArtificialSepsisYoung Adultacute medicinefluid assessmentfluid responsivenessintravenous fluidsepsis

Identifiers

PMID31152360
PMCPMC6711941
OpenAlexW2948015206

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.