ArticleBMC medical education2022
Intravenous fluid therapy: a multi-national, cross-sectional survey of common medical student resources.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInappropriate prescription of intravenous fluid therapy is highly prevalent in hospitals, with up to 1 in 5 patients suffering from preventable, additional morbidity. Since trainee physicians are frequently responsible for prescribing intravenous fluids, it is possible that common medical student resources do not sufficiently cover the topic. There is a paucity of recent literature on this issue, which this study was designed to address.
methodsTwo original evaluation tools were created by the authors to evaluate reference books, official guidelines, and online reference sources commonly used by medical students in the United States of America, Australia, and the United Kingdom on their coverage of foundational and clinically relevant principles of intravenous fluid prescription. The choice of student resources was guided by a literature search and personal experience. A total of 10 resources was assessed.
resultsResources were generally deficit in their coverage of basic intravenous fluid topics. The total points each topic accumulated ranged from 0.5 (5%) to 7.5 (75%), with the median score being 4.5 (45%), on a scale from 0 to 10 points.
conclusionsPopular medical student resources poorly cover intravenous fluid therapy topics. This may be contributing to inadequate fluid prescribing practices.
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.