ArticleCureus2024
A Review of Fluid Bolus in Critically Ill Patients After Initial Volume Expansion: Bayesian Probability Analysis and Case Studies.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Fluid resuscitation is a crucial intervention for the management of critically ill patients. However, after initial volume expansion, the advantages of fluid bolus administration remain controversial. Our aim was to investigate the probabilistic reasoning against fluid bolus administration in critically ill patients after initial volume expansion. We then applied this reasoning to two hypothetical case studies that evaluated the benefits and risks associated with a fluid bolus for each patient. Methods We analyzed data from 12 previously published studies, totaling 334 patients, on fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Owing to differences in these studies, we used a Monte Carlo simulation based on their parameters to improve our Bayesian prior, generate strong estimates, and address uncertainty. Using the established Bayesian prior for volume responsiveness, we scrutinized two hypothetical case studies employing Bayesian mathematical notation to assess the pre-test probability, posterior probability, and likelihood ratios in patients with septic shock. Results The Monte Carlo simulation yielded a mean response rate of 0.54 (SD = 0.026), suggesting that only approximately 54% of patients were responsive to fluid bolus administration. These results had an effective sample size of 17,204 and an R-hat value of 1, demonstrating the reliability of our results. In our Bayesian case studies, we demonstrate the low probabilities of volume and VO
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.