ReviewCritical care explorations2019
Resuscitation Guided by Volume Responsiveness Does Not Reduce Mortality in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Critical care explorations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Guideline
- Dynamic Measures of Fluid Responsiveness to Guide Resuscitation in Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Critical care explorations · 2025Pooled it
- Does Fluid Administration Based on Fluid Responsiveness Tests such as Passive Leg Raising Improve Outcomes in Sepsis?Current cardiology reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Resuscitation Targets, Fluids, and Vasoactives in Septic Shock.Clinics in chest medicine · 2026Review
- Precision fluid therapy in sepsis: fluid responsiveness vs. fluid tolerance.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Hemodynamic Support in Sepsis.Anesthesiology · 2024Review
- Inferior Vena Caval Measures Do Not Correlate with Carotid Artery Corrected Flow Time Change Measured Using a Wireless Doppler Patch in Healthy Volunteers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- New Insights into the Fluid Management in Patients with Septic Shock.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Evolving Management Practices for Early Sepsis-induced Hypoperfusion: A Narrative Review.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Review
- The time cost of physiologically ineffective intravenous fluids in the emergency department: an observational pilot study employing wearable Doppler ultrasound.Journal of intensive care · 2023Article
- Ultrasound in Sepsis and Septic Shock-From Diagnosis to Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Effective hemodynamic monitoring.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Review
- Prediction of fluid responsiveness. What's new?Annals of intensive care · 2022Review
- Fluids or vasopressors for the initial resuscitation of septic shock.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Fluid Resuscitation in Patients Presenting with Sepsis: Current Insights.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2022Review
- Shock Management Without Formal Fluid Responsiveness Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Fluid Responsiveness and Its Outcomes.Journal of acute medicine · 2021Article
- Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021.Intensive care medicine · 2021Article
- [Fluid management in shock patients : New targets in the initial phase of shock].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2021Review
- The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Fluid Resuscitation and Vasopressor Therapy Research Priorities in Adult Patients.Critical care medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Resuscitation with IV fluids is a critical component in the management of sepsis. Although the optimal volume of IV fluid is unknown, there is evidence that excessive administration can be deleterious. Static measures of volume status have not proven to be meaningful resuscitative endpoints. Determination of volume responsiveness has putative benefits over static measures, but its effect on outcomes is unknown. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if resuscitation with a volume responsiveness-guided approach leads to improved outcomes in septic patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception until April 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies of patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock that compared volume responsiveness-guided fluid resuscitation to standard techniques and reported mortality data. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted study details, patient characteristics, volume responsiveness assessment method, and mortality data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 1,224 abstracts and 31 full-texts evaluated, four studies (total 365 patients) met inclusion criteria. Using random effects modeling, the pooled odds ratio for mortality at time of longest follow-up with a volume responsiveness-guided strategy was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.49-1.54). Pooling of clinical data was not possibly owing to heterogeneity of reporting in individual studies.
conclusionsWe found no significant difference in mortality between septic patients resuscitated with a volume responsiveness-guided approach compared with standard resuscitative strategies. It remains unclear whether the findings are due to the small sample size or a true lack of efficacy of a volume responsiveness-guided approach.
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.