ReviewCureus2022
Where Are We Heading With Fluid Responsiveness and Septic Shock?
Review in Cureus, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of tissue-perfusion-guided resuscitation in shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- End-tidal carbon dioxide's change to fluid challenge versus internal jugular vein dispensability index for predicting fluid responsiveness in septic patients: A prospective, observational study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When hypovolemia is left uncorrected, it can lead to poor tissue oxygenation and organ dysfunction. On the other hand, excessive fluid administration can increase the risk of complications. Assessing volume responsiveness in critically ill patients is therefore crucial. In this article we summarized the literature addressing the most sensitive and specific dynamic predictors for fluid responsiveness, to help clarify the best way to guide clinicians in managing patients with shock. Data were collected from PubMed and EMBASE of high-quality articles, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective research, and metanalyses; articles were identified from January 2000 to February 2021. We identified and critically reviewed the published peer-reviewed literature investigating the dynamic predictors to assess fluid responsiveness. Evidence suggests that the traditional use of static predictors for fluid responsiveness should be abandoned. Over the last 20 years, a number of dynamic tests have been developed. These tests are based on the principle of inducing short-term changes in cardiac preload using heart-lung interactions. However, in routine practice the conditions to meet the requirements of these dynamic parameters are frequently not met. Therefore, more dynamic predictors that do not depend on heart-lung interaction have developed such as the mini fluid challenge test and passive leg raising test These tests have fewer limitations and higher sensitivity and specificity compared to the other tests.
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.