ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2025
Passive leg raising test versus rapid fluid challenge in critically ill medical patients.
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Respiratory variation in carotid artery blood flow peak velocity combined with tidal volume challenge in predicting fluid responsiveness of lung-protective ventilation patients: a feasibility study.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe passive leg raising (PLR) test is a simple test to detect preload responsiveness. However, variable fluid doses and infusion times were used in studies evaluating the effect of PLR. Studies showed that the effect of fluid challenge on hemodynamics dissipates in 10 min. This prospective study aimed to compare PLR and a rapid fluid challenge (RFC) with a 300-ml bolus infused within 5 min in adult patients with a hemodynamic compromise. MATERIALS AND
methodsCritically ill medical patients with signs of systemic hypoperfusion were included if volume expansion was considered. Hemodynamic status was assessed with continuous measurements of cardiac output (CO), when possible, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at baseline, during PLR, and after RFC.
resultsA total of 124 patients with a median age of 65.0 years were included. Their acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score was 19.7 ± 6.0, with a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score of 9.0 ± 4.4. Sepsis was diagnosed in 73.3%, and 79.8% of the patients were already receiving a norepinephrine infusion. Invasive MAP monitoring was established in all patients, while continuous CO recording was possible in 42 patients (33.9%). Based on CO changes, compared with those with RFC, the false positive and false negative rates with PLR were 21.7 and 36.8%, respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 70.6 and 72.0%, respectively. Based on MAP changes, compared with those with RFC, the false positive and false negative rates with PLR compared to RFC were 38.2% and 43.3%, respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 64.4 and 54.0%, respectively.
conclusionThis study demonstrated a moderate agreement between PLR and RFC in hemodynamically compromised medical patients, which should be considered when testing preload responsiveness.
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.