ReviewCureus2023
The Effects of Restrictive Fluid Resuscitation on the Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Sepsis or Septic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical efficacy of various resuscitation fluids in the management of sepsis in postoperative surgical and trauma patients: a systematic review and meta--analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Pooled it
- Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Strategy for Initial Resuscitation in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2026Article
- Personalized Fluid Management in Patients With Sepsis and Acute Kidney Injury: A Causal Machine Learning Approach.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Identifying septic shock subgroups to tailor fluid strategies through multi-omics integration.Nature communications · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to assess the impact of a restrictive resuscitation strategy on the outcomes of patients with sepsis and septic shock. This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A systematic search was performed in databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering the period from the inception of the database to August 2023, with no limitations on the language of publication. Outcomes assessed in the meta-analysis included mortality, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in days, duration of mechanical ventilation in days, acute kidney injury (AKI) or the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and length of hospital stay in days. Overall, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the present meta-analysis. The findings of this study indicate that although the risk of mortality was lower in fluid restriction compared to the control group, the difference was statistically insignificant (risk ratio (RR): 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.9-1.05; P value: 0.61). Additionally, the duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the restrictive fluid group compared to its counterparts (mean difference (MD): -1.02; 95% CI: -1.65 to -0.38; P value: 0.003). There were no significant differences found in relation to the duration of ICU stays, the incidence of AKI, the requirement for RRT, or the length of hospital stays measured in days.
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.