Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33494795›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Acetate Ringer's solution versus 0.9% saline for septic patients: study protocol for a multi-center parallel controlled trial.

Fang Liu, Jing Zhang, Yuan Zhu, Lianjiu Su, Yiming Li, Li He, Li Yu, Zhiyong Peng

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03685214 (Comparison of Balanced Crystalloids and Normal Saline in Septic Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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.

NCT03685214 naunknown statusnot on this map

Comparison of Balanced Crystalloids and Normal Saline in Septic Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorZhiYong PengRan2019 to 2021Enrolled500ConditionsSepsis, Acute Kidney Injury, Septic Shock, Sepsis, SevereArms0.9% saline, lactated Ringer's solution
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Fang LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Jing ZhangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Yuan ZhuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Lianjiu SuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Yiming LiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Li HeDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China.
Li YuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Wuhan Central Hospital, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Tongji Medical School, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China.
Zhiyong PengDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, 430071, Hubei, China. pengzy5@hotmail.com.
Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University · CNWuhan University · CNHuazhong University of Science and Technology · CN

Funding

Wu Jieping Medical Foundation HRJJ20171026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious study drew different conclusions on significant differences between saline and balanced crystalloid solution infused in critical illness but both showed a statistical difference in the sepsis subgroup. Thus, we will specifically focus on septic patients in this study to compare the effects of saline and balanced solution. We hypothesize that effects of saline on renal outcomes are related to the underline acute kidney injury (AKI) severity and total volumes of infusion. METHODS/

designThe investigators designed a pragmatic, multi-center parallel controlled trial recruiting 312 patients who are diagnosed with sepsis/septic shock in the intensive care unit (ICU) and will be assigned with either acetate Ringer's solution or saline in the corresponding month. Patients with an end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or who need renal replacement therapy (RRT) prior to or at the time of enrolment are excluded. Enrolled patients will be regarded as with mild, moderate, or severe sepsis on the basis of the severity of their illness and will be divided into subgroups according to their initial renal function and various intravenous infusion volumes when being analyzed. The primary outcome is major adverse kidney events within 28 days (MAKE28), including the composite of in-hospital death, receipt of new renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction. Secondary outcomes include 28-day mortality, internal environment disturbance, incidence and duration of vasoactive drug treatment, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of RRT, and ICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS AND

conclusionsTo our knowledge, this study will be the first to focus on septic patients and provide credible and evident data on the comparison of outcome between acetate Ringer's solution and saline for intravenous infusion in adult septic patients on the basis of baseline renal function and infusion volumes taken into consideration.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03685214 . Registered on August 15, 2018.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFluid TherapyHospital MortalityHumansInfusions, IntravenousIsotonic SolutionsMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicProspective StudiesIsotonic SolutionsRinger's acetateSaline SolutionAcetate Ringer’s solutionAcute kidney injurySalineSepsisSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID33494795
PMCPMC7830046
OpenAlexW3124565124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.