ReviewCureus2023
Fluid Resuscitation in Septic Patients.
Review in Cureus, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers to guide sepsis management.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Restrictive fluid resuscitation versus liberal fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock: comparison of outcomes.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Recent trends in septic shock management: a narrative review of current evidence and recommendations.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis is a life-threatening organ failure caused by a dysregulated response to infection. Fluid resuscitation and vasopressors are used to maintain systolic blood pressure and organ perfusion. Fluid resuscitation can be done with liberal or restricted fluids as well as colloids or crystalloid fluids. This review analyses the evidence for the use of liberal or restrictive fluids and colloids or crystalloids for the management of sepsis. A methodical search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines were followed for this study. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies were included in this study. Liberal and restrictive fluid strategies were found to be comparable in efficacy, but restrictive fluid regimens had the added benefit of a lower incidence of fluid overload. Balanced crystalloids were safer and more effective when compared to normal saline. Albumin replacement was found to be safe and showed efficacy in reducing mortality in patients with sepsis and 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.