Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39540031›Full record

ReviewBurns open : an international open access journal for burn injuries2024

Adapted approaches to initial fluid management of patients with major burns in resource-limited settings: A systematic review.

Kai Hsun Hsiao, Joseph Kalanzi, Stuart B Watson, Srinivas Murthy, Ani Movsisyan, Kavita Kothari, Flavio Salio, Pryanka Relan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Burns open : an international open access journal for burn injuries, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

Kai Hsun HsiaoEmergency Medical Teams, Country Readiness Strengthening Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Joseph KalanziDepartment of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Stuart B WatsonCanniesburn Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Srinivas MurthyFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Ani MovsisyanConsultant to the Methods and Standards Team, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kavita KothariConsultant to Library and Digital Information Networks, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Flavio SalioEmergency Medical Teams, Country Readiness Strengthening Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pryanka RelanEmergency Medical Teams, Country Readiness Strengthening Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Resource limitations in settings such as burn mass casualty incidents (MCIs) present challenges to the judicious fluid resuscitation required for major burns. Previous recommendations for burns care in MCIs have suggested certain adaptations from routine care, such as delaying intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation until arrival at facility; using a fluid calculation formula that is independent of percentage of total body surface area (%TBSA) burned; or using fluid calculation formula based on time of arrival to first receiving facility rather than from time of injury, thus omitting 'catch-up' fluid. Objectives: To synthesize and assess certainty of evidence from resource-limited settings on the three adaptations to fluid resuscitation for patients with major burns in MCIs. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched on 8 September 2023 with an update search on 8 July 2024. Primary quantitative studies in resource-limited settings meeting eligibility criteria as assessed by two reviewers were included. Where available, outcome effects for these adaptations compared to routine burns care were calculated. Evidence certainty was determined by GRADE. Results: Two eligible studies were identified from 544 search results. One study with 48 participants provided very uncertain evidence that delayed IV fluid resuscitation may increase acute kidney injury compared to prehospital resuscitation (OR 2.48, 95% CI 0.58-10.62). The other study with a cohort of 10 children provided very uncertain evidence that calculating fluid requirements based on time of arrival to first receiving facility, i.e. omitting 'catch-up' fluids, may maintain adequate urine output and be associated with no complications of fluid over- or under-resuscitation. There were no studies on use of a simplified %TBSA-independent fluid calculation formula. Conclusions: There is very limited and uncertain evidence to inform on delayed IV fluid resuscitation, simplified %TBSA-independent formula, and omission of 'catch up' fluids for burns care in MCIs. Contextual factors, local values, preferences and feasibility also need to be considered.

Indexed as

BurnsDisastersFluid therapyIntravenous fluidMass casualty incidentsResource-limited settings

Identifiers

PMID39540031
PMCPMC11554568

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.