Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35338648›Full record

ReviewActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2022

Conservative vs. liberal fluid therapy in septic shock - Protocol for secondary Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial.

Praleene Sivapalan, Tine S Meyhoff, Peter B Hjortrup, Theis Lange, Morten Hylander Møller, Anders Perner, Anders Granholm

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Praleene SivapalanDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0442-0032
Tine S MeyhoffDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1840-1596
Peter B HjortrupDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3847-3247
Theis LangeCollaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC), Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6807-8347
Morten Hylander MøllerDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6378-9673
Anders PernerDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4668-0123
Anders GranholmDepartment of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5799-7655
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) fluid volumes in sepsis. The Conservative vs. Liberal Approach to fluid therapy of Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial investigates the effect of restricted vs. standard IV fluid therapy in 1554 adult intensive care unit patients with septic shock.

methodsThis protocol describes secondary Bayesian analyses of the primary outcome (90-day all-cause mortality) and three secondary outcomes at day 90. We will analyse all binary outcomes with adjusted Bayesian logistic regressions and present results as conditional relative risks and risk differences with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). The secondary count outcome will be analysed using adjusted Bayesian linear regression with results summarised as conditional mean differences and ratios of means with 95% Crls. We will use weakly informative priors for the primary analyses, and sceptical and evidence-based priors in the sensitivity analyses. Exact probabilities will be presented for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and no clinically important difference. We will assess whether heterogeneity of treatment effects on mortality is present using Bayesian hierarchical models in subgroups and on the continuous scale using models with interactions according to five baseline variables assessing the overall severity of illness and the degree of circulatory and renal impairment. DISCUSSION: The outlined analyses will supplement the primary analysis of the CLASSIC trial by describing probabilities of beneficial and harmful effects and evaluating heterogeneity of treatment effects in a framework that may be easier to interpret for researchers and clinicians.

Indexed as

Shock, SepticAdultBayes TheoremCritical CareFluid TherapyHumansIntensive Care Units

Identifiers

PMID35338648
PMCPMC9321943
OpenAlexW4220655172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.