ArticlePloS one2023
Mortality after emergency unit fluid bolus in febrile Ugandan children.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global emergency medicine: A scoping review of the literature from 2023.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPediatric fluid resuscitation in sub-Saharan Africa has traditionally occurred in inpatients. The landmark Fluid Expansion as Supportive Therapy (FEAST) trial showed fluid boluses for febrile children in this inpatient setting increased mortality. As emergency care expands in sub-Saharan Africa, fluid resuscitation increasingly occurs in the emergency unit. The objective of this study was to determine the mortality impact of emergency unit fluid resuscitation on febrile pediatric patients in Uganda.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from 2012-2019 from a single emergency unit in rural Western Uganda to compare three-day mortality for febrile patients that did and did not receive fluids in the emergency unit. Propensity score matching was used to create matched cohorts. Crude and multivariable logistic regression analysis (using both complete case analysis and multiple imputation) were performed on matched and unmatched cohorts. Sensitivity analysis was done separately for patients meeting FEAST inclusion and exclusion criteria.
resultsThe analysis included 3087 febrile patients aged 2 months to 12 years with 1,526 patients receiving fluids and 1,561 not receiving fluids. The matched cohorts each had 1,180 patients. Overall mortality was 4.0%. No significant mortality benefit or harm was shown in the crude unmatched (Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] = 0.88 [0.61-1.26] or crude matched (1.00 [0.66-1.50]) cohorts. Adjusted cohort analysis (including both complete case analysis and multiple imputation) and sensitivity analysis of patients meeting FEAST inclusion and exclusion criteria all also failed to show benefit or harm. Post-hoc power calculations showed the study was powered to detect the absolute harm seen in FEAST but not the relative risk increase.
conclusionsThis study's primary finding is that fluid resuscitation in the emergency unit did not significantly increase or decrease three-day mortality for febrile children in Uganda. Universally aggressive or fluid-sparing emergency unit protocols are unlikely to be best practices, and choices about fluid resuscitation should be individualized.
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.