ReviewJournal of intensive medicine2023
How to integrate hemodynamic variables during resuscitation of septic shock?
Review in Journal of intensive medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Less-Invasive Hemodynamic and Tissue Perfusion Monitoring in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Subphenotyping hypotension in early sepsis: A physiology-guided therapeutic approach.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Applied physiology at the bedside: using invasive blood pressure as a true monitoring tool.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Development of a predictive model for septic shock-associated acute skin failure using readily available clinical variables.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Right ventricle and venous system: bridging physiology and clinical practice. A narrative review.Critical care science · 2025Review
- PiCCO or Cardiac Ultrasound? Which Is Better for Hemodynamic Monitoring in ICU?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Venoarterial Partial Pressure of Carbon Dioxide Difference: Let's Trend It!Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of a standardized 4 mL/kg fluid bolus technique in critically ill patients with elevated PFrontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resuscitation of septic shock is a complex issue because the cardiovascular disturbances that characterize septic shock vary from one patient to another and can also change over time in the same patient. Therefore, different therapies (fluids, vasopressors, and inotropes) should be individually and carefully adapted to provide personalized and adequate treatment. Implementation of this scenario requires the collection and collation of all feasible information, including multiple hemodynamic variables. In this review article, we propose a logical stepwise approach to integrate relevant hemodynamic variables and provide the most appropriate treatment for septic shock.
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.