ReviewEuropean burn journal2024
Enteral Resuscitation: A Field-Expedient Treatment Strategy for Burn Shock during Wartime and in Other Austere Settings.
Review in European burn journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of enteral vs intravenous resuscitation for adults with major burn injuries in Nepal.Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2025Trial
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing enteral resuscitation for major burn injuries: Reflections from Nepalese care providers.Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2025Article
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
Burn injuries are a constant threat in war. Aspects of the modern battlefield increase the risk of burn injuries and pose challenges for early treatment. The initial resuscitation of a severely burn-injured patient often exceeds the resources available in front-line medical facilities. This stems mostly from the weight and volume of the intravenous fluids required. One promising solution to this problem is enteral resuscitation with an oral rehydration solution. In addition to being logistically easier to manage, enteral resuscitation may be able to mitigate secondary injuries to the gut related to burn shock and systemic immunoinflammatory activation. This has been previously studied in burn patients, primarily using electrolyte solutions, with promising results. Modern ORS containing sodium, potassium, and glucose in ratios that maximize gut absorption may provide additional benefits as a resuscitation strategy, both in terms of plasma volume expansion and protection of the barrier and immune functions of the gut mucosa. While enteral resuscitation is promising and should be used when other options are not available, further research is needed to refine an optimal implementation strategy.
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.