ArticleInternational journal of burns and trauma2021
A case study demonstrating tolerance of the gut to large volumes of enteral fluids as a complement to IV fluid resuscitation in burn shock.
Article in International journal of burns and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of enteral vs intravenous resuscitation for adults with major burn injuries in Nepal.Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2025Trial
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Appropriate intravenous fluid resuscitation has improved early post burn outcomes. However, clinical and pre-clinical evidence suggests that enteral or oral resuscitation may complement intravenous fluid administration. While this strategy is often discussed in the context of resource-limited settings, its implementation could reduce overall IV fluid requirements and simplify management during routine care. Conversely, concerns about this strategy have been raised over impaired gut perfusion and function leading to adverse effects. We present a case of an 82-year-old man with a total burn size of 14% who was encouraged to ingest the oral rehydration solution Drip Drop® starting 7 hours post-burn. In the ensuing 17 hours he consumed over 5 L of oral rehydration solution, which was nearly 1 L more than the total amount of IV fluids he received. There were no adverse gastrointestinal side effects. This demonstrates tolerance of a significant volume of voluntary oral fluids in combination with IV resuscitation. Clinical trials are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34336386PMC8310868W3193166638What 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.