ArticleBMJ open2023
Protocolised early de-resuscitation in septic shock (REDUCE): protocol for a randomised controlled multicentre feasibility trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04931485 (Protocolised Early De-Resuscitation in Septic Shock), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Protocolised Early De-Resuscitation in Septic Shock (REDUCE) - a Randomised Controlled Multi-centre Feasibility Study
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ultrasound gap in de-resuscitation trials: A systematic review of physiological assessment deficits.The ultrasound journal · 2026Article
- The fluid paradox: dissociation between clinical and ultrasound parameters of fluid overload - results of the INCIVEX exploratory study.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2026Observational
- How to perform fluid de-escalation in critical care.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- Fluid Creep as an Independent Predictor of Fluid Overload and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: A Cohort Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Adaptive Blood Purification for Septic Shock (EABPSS): protocol for a randomised, multicentre, parallel controlled study.BMJ open · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluid overload is associated with excess mortality in septic shock. Current approaches to reduce fluid overload include restrictive administration of fluid or active removal of accumulated fluid. However, evidence on active fluid removal is scarce. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and feasibility of an early de-resuscitation protocol in patients with septic shock.
methodsAll patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with a septic shock are screened, and eligible patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to intervention or standard of care.
interventionFluid management will be performed according to the REDUCE protocol, where resuscitation fluid will be restricted to patients showing signs of poor tissue perfusion. After the lactate has peaked, the patient is deemed stable and assessed for active de-resuscitation (signs of fluid overload). The primary objective of this study is the proportion of patients with a negative cumulative fluid balance at day 3 after ICU. Secondary objectives are cumulative fluid balances throughout the ICU stay, number of patients with fluid overload, feasibility and safety outcomes and patient-centred outcomes. The primary outcome will be assessed by a logistic regression model adjusting for the stratification variables (trial site and chronic renal failure) in the intention-to-treat population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the respective ethical committees (No 2020-02197). The results of the REDUCE trial will be published in an international peer-reviewed medical journal regardless of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04931485.
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.