Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33140397›Full record

SynthesisCardiology journal2022

Efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline solutions fluid resuscitation on hypovolemic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kamil Safiejko, Jacek Smereka, Michal Pruc, Jerzy R Ladny, Milosz J Jaguszewski, Krzysztof J Filipiak, Ruslan Yakubtsevich, Lukasz Szarpak

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cardiology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Kamil SafiejkoMaria Sklodowska-Curie Bialystok Oncology Center, Bialystok, Poland.
Jacek SmerekaDepartment of Emergency Medical Ser vice, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Michal PrucPolish Society of Disaster Medicine, Warsaw, Poland.
Jerzy R LadnyPolish Society of Disaster Medicine, Warsaw, Poland.
Milosz J JaguszewskiFirst Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Poland.
Krzysztof J FilipiakFirst Chair and Depar tment of Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland.
Ruslan YakubtsevichDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Car e, Grodno State Medical Univer sity, Grodno, Belarus.
Lukasz SzarpakMaria Sklodowska-Curie Bialystok Oncology Center, Bialystok, Poland. lukasz.szarpak@gmail.com.
Medical University of Białystok · PLGdańsk Medical University · PLGrodno State Medical University · BYMedical University of Warsaw · PLWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFluid resuscitation is a fundamental intervention in patients with hypovolemic shock resulting from trauma. Appropriate fluid resuscitation in trauma patients could reduce organ failure, until blood components are available, and hemorrhage is controlled. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effect of hypertonic saline/dextran or hypertonic saline for fluid resuscitation on patient outcomes restricted to adults with hypovolemic shock.

methodsWe conducted a search of electronic information sources, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and bibliographic reference lists to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating outcomes of crystalloids versus colloids in patients with hypovolemic shock. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) of groups using fixed or random-effect models.

resultsFifteen studies including 3264 patients met our inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge rate between research groups varied and amounted to 71.2% in hypertonic saline/dextran group vs. 68.4% for isotonic/normotonic fluid (normal saline) solutions (odds ratio [OR] = 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.45; I2 = 48%; p = 0.09). 28- to 30-days survival rate for hypertonic fluid solutions was 72.8% survivable, while in the case of isotonic fluid (normal saline) - 71.4% (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.75-1.70; I2 = 43%; p = 0.56).

conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis, which included only evidence from RCTs hypertonic saline/dextran or hypertonic saline compared with isotonic fluid did not result in superior 28- to 30-day survival as well as in survival to hospital discharge. However, patients with hypotension who received resuscitation with hypertonic saline/dextran had less overall mortality as patients who received conventional fluid.

Indexed as

DextransShockAdultCritical IllnessHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResuscitationSaline SolutionSaline Solution, HypertonicDextransSaline SolutionSaline Solution, Hypertoniccolloid fluidcrystalloidfluid resuscitationhypertonic salinehypovolemic shockinjurynormal salinetraumatreatment

Identifiers

PMID33140397
PMCPMC9788734
OpenAlexW3094158854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.