ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
The effects of early restrictive fluid resuscitation on the clinical outcomes in sepsis patients.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical efficacy of various resuscitation fluids in the management of sepsis in postoperative surgical and trauma patients: a systematic review and meta--analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Pooled it
- Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Strategy for Initial Resuscitation in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2026Article
- Restrictive fluid resuscitation versus liberal fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock: comparison of outcomes.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Effect of fluid balance situation within 7 days and early fluid intake after admission to the intensive care unit on in-hospital mortality and 1-year mortality in patients with cardiac arrest: a retrospective study from the MIMIC IV database.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Efficacy comparison of restrictive versus massive fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effects of early restrictive fluid resuscitation (RFR) on the clinical outcomes in sepsis patients.
methodsA total of 122 sepsis patients admitted to our hospital were recruited for this study and divided into a study group (the SG, n=56) and a control group (the CG, n=66) according to the treatment method each patient was administered. The SG was administered early RFR, and the CG was administered adequate fluid resuscitation. The clinical data were analyzed retrospectively in both groups. The total infusion volumes, the hemorrhage amounts, the urine outputs, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores were compared between the two groups. In addition, the heart rates, the mean arterial pressure levels, the central venous pressure levels, and the cardiac function indices were compared between the two groups at 1-7 days after the procedures. The survival and the complication incidence rates were followed up.
resultsThe SG showed significantly lower heart rates and mean arterial pressure levels and higher central venous pressure levels than the CG at 1-7 days after the procedures (
conclusionEarly RFR can remarkably improve the clinical outcomes, the myocardial injury and survival rates, and the multiple complications incidence rate in sepsis patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34786074PMC8581844What 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.