ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
The Effect and Evaluation of the Third Military Medical University Fluid Resuscitation Formula.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 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.
- Ultra-restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in extensively burned patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- [Strengthening the development and application of precision burn medicine].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical efficacy of the third Military Medical University formula (TMMU formula) for fluid resuscitation stage was evaluated to improve the treatment level of adult patients with extensive burns during the shock stage. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the data of 55 patients undergoing fluid resuscitation according to the TMMU formula within six hours after burn injury. The following indicators were collected: (1) demographic and injury information; (2) fluid resuscitation information; (3) efficiency information, including cardiovascular function, liver function, renal function, coagulation function evaluation indicators, blood concentration, and average urine output index. Results: (1) In the first and second 24 hours after injury, the median fluid rehydration coefficient was 1.68 ml/kg·(%) TBSA and 1.15 ml/kg·(%) TBSA, the median ratio of crystal to colloid was 2.24 and 1.67, and the median urine output index was 0.75 ml/kg·h and 1.05 ml/kg·h, respectively. (2) The actual fluid volume during patient resuscitation is higher than the formula calculated volume, and this difference is more obvious in patients with burn area ≥80%. (3) In the second 24 hours, the value of the actual total fluid volume minus the formula total volume in the group with crystal to colloid ratio ≤2 was significantly lower than that in the ratio >2 group. (4) At 24 and 48 hours after injury, the cardiovascular function, liver function, renal function, and coagulation function were better than those before fluid resuscitation. Conclusions: Early application of the TMMU formula for fluid resuscitation in adult patients with extensive burns is safe and effective, but the actual input volume often exceeds the volume calculated by the formula, especially in the second 24 hours after burn injury and in patients with larger burn areas. Increasing the colloid input volume can help reduce the total amount of fluid used for resuscitation.
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.