Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32489406›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2020

Fluid management and deresuscitation practices: A survey of critical care physicians.

Jonathan A Silversides, Daniel F McAuley, Bronagh Blackwood, Eddy Fan, Andrew J Ferguson, John C Marshall

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. How I personalize fluid therapy in septic shock?Critical care (London, England) · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan A SilversidesWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3183-4337
Daniel F McAuleyWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Bronagh BlackwoodWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Eddy FanInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Andrew J FergusonWellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
John C MarshallInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Queen's University Belfast · GBSt. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accumulation of a positive fluid balance is common in critically ill patients, and is associated with adverse outcomes, including mortality. However, there are few randomised clinical trials to guide clinicians as to the most appropriate fluid strategy following initial resuscitation and on the use of deresuscitation (removal of accumulated fluid using diuretics and/or renal replacement therapy). To inform the design of randomised trials, we surveyed critical care physicians with regard to perceptions of fluid overload in critical care, self-reported practice, acceptability of a variety of approaches to deresuscitation, appropriate safety parameters, and overall acceptability of a randomised trial of deresuscitation. Of 524 critical care specialists completing the survey, the majority practiced in mixed medical/surgical intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Most (309 of 363 respondents, 85%) believed fluid overload to be a modifiable source of morbidity; there was strong support (395 of 457, 86%) for a randomised trial of deresuscitation in critical illness. Marked practice variability was evident among respondents. In a given clinical scenario, self-reported practice ranged from the administration of fluid (N = 59, 14%) to the administration of a diuretic (N = 285, 67%). The majority (95%) considered it appropriate to administer diuretics for fluid overload in the setting of noradrenaline infusion and to continue to administer diuretics despite mild dysnatraemias, hypotension, metabolic alkalosis, and hypokalaemia. The majority of critical care physicians view fluid overload as a common and modifiable source of morbidity; deresuscitation is widely practiced, and there is widespread support for randomised trials of deresuscitation in critical illness.

Indexed as

critical careCritical illnessderesuscitationdiureticsfluid therapywater–electrolyte balance

Identifiers

PMID32489406
PMCPMC7238475
OpenAlexW2945782985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.