ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2022
Efficacy comparison of restrictive versus massive fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Severe trauma care: advances and future directions in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques and information technology support.Medical review (2021) · 2026Article
- Analysis of factors associated with the outcome of hospitalisation in patients with traumatic pelvic fracture combined with shock.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Effect of restrictive fluid resuscitation on the coagulation function and hemodynamic parameters in patients with hemorrhagic traumatic shock.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the therapeutic effect and safety of restrictive versus massive fluid resuscitation in patients with traumatic hemorrhagic shock (TSH).
methodsNinety TSH patients treated in the ICU of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine from June 2020 to January 2021 were recruited for this retrospective study. Among them, 47 cases received restrictive fluid resuscitation (RFR) after admission who were considered as the observation group (OG), while the other 43 cases were given massive fluid resuscitation (MFR) who were treated as the control group (CG). The clinical indices, coagulation function, blood gas analysis, mortality within 72 h, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU stay were compared between the two groups, and the amount of resuscitation fluid given and complications that occurred during treatment were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to screen the independent risk factors for complications.
resultsIn comparison to the CG, the resuscitation time, infusion volume, and lactate level in the OG were lower after treatment, while the hemoglobin level and blood gas residual base value (BE) were higher. Besides, the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), thrombin time (TT) and prothrombin time (PT) levels and arterial blood carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO
conclusionTSH treatment with RFR can effectively accelerate patients' resuscitation with less volume of infusion of resuscitation fluid, reduced time of mechanical ventilation and ICU hospitalization, and promote the recovery of coagulation function. It has good effects and is very suitable for clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36398268PMC9641447What 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.