SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2020
Recommendations for fluid management of adults with sepsis in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of guidelines.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient diversity and author representation in clinical studies supporting the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021: a systematic review of citations.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Pooled it
- Early increase in red cell distribution width-to-platelet ratio is associated with poor prognosis in sepsis patients: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Perceptions, availability and use of vasopressors for septic shock in emergency care settings in Tanzania.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025Article
- Recommendations for the use of biomarkers for the management of adults with sepsis: a scoping review and critical appraisal.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Global critical care: a call to action.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Review
- Norepinephrine may improve survival of septic shock patients in a low-resource setting: a proof-of-concept study on feasibility and efficacy outside the Intensive Care Unit.Pathogens and global health · 2022Article
- On prioritising global health's triple crisis of sepsis, COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance: a mixed-methods study from Malawi.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Improving sepsis care in Africa: an opportunity for change?The Pan African medical journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSepsis guidelines are widely used in high-income countries and intravenous fluids are an important supportive treatment modality. However, fluids have been harmful in intervention trials in low-income countries, most notably in sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed the relevance, quality and applicability of available guidelines for the fluid management of adult patients with sepsis in this region.
methodsWe identified sepsis guidelines by systematic review with broad search terms, duplicate screening and data extraction. We included peer-reviewed publications with explicit relevance to sepsis and fluid therapy. We excluded those designed exclusively for specific aetiologies of sepsis, for limited geographic locations, or for non-adult populations. We used the AGREE II tool to assess the quality of guideline development, performed a narrative synthesis and used theoretical case scenarios to assess practical applicability to everyday clinical practice in resource-constrained settings.
resultsPublished sepsis guidelines are heterogeneous in sepsis definition and in quality: 8/10 guidelines had significant deficits in applicability, particularly with reference to resource considerations in low-income settings. Indications for intravenous fluid were hypotension (8/10), clinical markers of hypoperfusion (6/10) and lactataemia (3/10). Crystalloids were overwhelmingly recommended (9/10). Suggested volumes varied; 5/10 explicitly recommended "fluid challenges" with reassessment, totalling between 1 L and 4 L during initial resuscitation. Fluid balance, including later de-escalation of therapy, was not specifically described in any. Norepinephrine was the preferred initial vasopressor (5/10), specifically targeted to MAP > 65 mmHg (3/10), with higher values suggested in pre-existing hypertension (1/10). Recommendations for guidelines were almost universally derived from evidence in high-income countries. None of the guidelines suggested any refinement for patients with malnutrition.
conclusionsWidely used international guidelines contain disparate recommendations on intravenous fluid use, lack specificity and are largely unattainable in low-income countries given available resources. A relative lack of high-quality evidence from sub-Saharan Africa increases reliance on recommendations which may not be relevant or implementable.
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.