Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38826945›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

A Review of Fluid Bolus in Critically Ill Patients After Initial Volume Expansion: Bayesian Probability Analysis and Case Studies.

Sharad Patel, Nitin Puri, Shawana Hussain, Jean-Sebastien Rachoin, Adam Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sharad PatelCritical Care, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, USA.
Nitin PuriCritical Care, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, USA.
Shawana HussainCritical Care, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, USA.
Jean-Sebastien RachoinCritical Care, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, USA.
Adam GreenCritical Care, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bayes theoremfluid bolusmonte-carlo simulationrefractory hypotensionsepsis treatmentshock

Identifiers

PMID38826945
PMCPMC11144048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.