Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35016638›Full record

SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2022

Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.

Gladis Kabil, Steven A Frost, Deborah Hatcher, Amith Shetty, Jann Foster, Stephen McNally

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Be-SNAP: the Belgian Sepsis National Action Plan.Frontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gladis KabilWestern Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Locked bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia. g.kabil@westernsydney.edu.au.
Steven A FrostWestern Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Locked bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Deborah HatcherWestern Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Locked bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Amith ShettyWestmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, Australia.
Jann FosterWestern Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Locked bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Stephen McNallyWestern Sydney University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Locked bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Western Sydney University · AUIngham Institute · AUWestmead Institute for Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly intravenous fluids for patients with sepsis presenting with hypoperfusion or shock in the emergency department remains one of the key recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to reduce mortality. However, compliance with the recommendation remains poor. While several interventions have been implemented to improve early fluid administration as part of sepsis protocols, the extent to which they have improved compliance with fluid resuscitation is unknown. The factors associated with the lack of compliance are also poorly understood.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions in emergency departments in improving compliance with early fluid administration and examine the non-interventional facilitators and barriers that may influence appropriate fluid administration in adults with sepsis. We searched MEDLINE Ovid/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases for studies of any design to April 2021. We synthesised results from the studies reporting effectiveness of interventions in a meta-analysis and conducted a narrative synthesis of studies reporting non-interventional factors.

resultsWe included 31 studies out of the 825 unique articles identified in the systematic review of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis and 11 in the narrative synthesis. In meta-analysis, interventions were associated with a 47% improvement in the rate of compliance [(Random Effects (RE) Relative Risk (RR) = 1.47, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.25-1.74, p-value < 0.01)]; an average 24 min reduction in the time to fluids [RE mean difference = - 24.11(95% CI - 14.09 to - 34.14 min, p value < 0.01)], and patients receiving an additional 575 mL fluids [RE mean difference = 575.40 (95% CI 202.28-1353.08, p value < 0.01)]. The compliance rate of early fluid administration reported in the studies included in the narrative synthesis is 48% [RR = 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.72)].

conclusionPerformance improvement interventions improve compliance and time and volume of fluids administered to patients with sepsis in the emergency department. While patient-related factors such as advanced age, co-morbidities, cryptic shock were associated with poor compliance, important organisational factors such as inexperience of clinicians, overcrowding and inter-hospital transfers were also identified. A comprehensive understanding of the facilitators and barriers to early fluid administration is essential to design quality improvement projects. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42021225417.

Indexed as

SepsisAdultEmergency Service, HospitalFluid TherapyHospitalsHumansResuscitationBarriersComplianceFacilitatorsFluid therapySepsis

Identifiers

PMID35016638
PMCPMC8753824
OpenAlexW4205300419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.