ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2020
Fluids of the Future.
Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cocktail-style multifunctional resuscitation fluids: Where are we now in 2026?Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2026Review
- Rethinking Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Shock: A Phase-Adapted, Endothelium-Sparing Approach to Mitigate Capillary Leak.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- Safety and efficacy of human polymerized hemoglobin on guinea pig resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Advantages of pyruvate-based fluids in preclinical shock resuscitation-A narrative review.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Fluids are a vital tool in the armament of acute care clinicians in both civilian and military resuscitation. We now better understand complications from inappropriate resuscitation with currently available fluids; however, fluid resuscitation undeniably remains a life-saving intervention. Military research has driven the most significant advances in the field of fluid resuscitation and is currently leading the search for the fluids of the future. The veterinary community, much like our civilian human counterparts, should expect the fluid of the future to be the fruit of military research. The fluids of the future not only are expected to improve patient outcomes but also be field expedient. Those fluids should be compatible with military environments or natural disaster environments. For decades, military personnel and disaster responders have faced the peculiar demands of austere environments, prolonged field care, and delayed evacuation. Large scale natural disasters present field limitations often similar to those encountered in the battlefield. The fluids of the future should, therefore, have a long shelf-life, a small footprint, and be resistant to large temperature swings, for instance. Traumatic brain injury and hemorrhagic shock are the leading causes of preventable death for military casualties and a significant burden in civilian populations. The military and civilian health systems are focusing efforts on field-expedient fluids that will be specifically relevant for the management of those conditions. Fluids are expected to be compatible with blood products, increase oxygen-carrying capabilities, promote hemostasis, and be easy to administer in the prehospital setting, to match the broad spectrum of current acute care challenges, such as sepsis and severe systemic inflammation. This article will review historical military and civilian contributions to current resuscitation strategies, describe the expectations for the fluids of the future, and describe select ongoing research efforts with a review of current animal data.
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.