SynthesisCJEM2023
The efficacy of prehospital IV fluid management in severely injured adult trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in CJEM, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Are crystalloid-based fluid expansion strategies still relevant in the first hours of trauma induced hemorrhagic shock?Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Trends in pre-hospital volume resuscitation of blunt trauma patients: a 15-year analysis of the British (TARN) and German (TraumaRegister DGU®) National Registries.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe most widely used prehospital strategy for the management of hemorrhagic shock or trauma accompanied by hypotension is fluid resuscitation. Though current guidelines suggest early and aggressive fluid resuscitation, contemporary literature suggests a more restrictive approach. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of low/ no IV fluids in comparison to standard resuscitation in reducing mortality for trauma patients in the prehospital setting.
methodsPopulation-adults with blunt or penetrating trauma in the prehospital setting with severe injury (defined as SBP < 90 mm Hg and/or a shock index > (1). Intervention-low-dose/no IV fluids. Comparison-standard resuscitation. Outcome-mortality. A librarian-assisted search of five databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL, Cochrane trials) was completed in June 2021 (updated in November 2022). ROBINS-1 and ROB-2 tools were used to assess risk of bias in observational and randomized studies, respectively. An inverse variance method and random-effects model of statistical analysis were utilized, with data reported as risk ratios with related 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity of studies was assessed through analysis of the I
conclusionWeak, primarily observational evidence suggests that standard fluid resuscitation has no significant mortality benefit over restricting/withholding IV fluids in severe/hypotensive trauma. This review adds evidence to questioning the requirement for IV fluids in trauma given the lack of mortality benefit, in addition to demonstrating the need for more randomized studies in this area.
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.