ReviewEuropean burn journal2022
The Accuracy of Prehospital Fluid Resuscitation of Burn Patients: A Systematic Review.
Review in European burn journal, 2022. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early management of burns is an essential component of achieving desirable patient outcomes. One of the earliest points of patient management in the case of burn injuries is in the prehospital setting. Unlike first aid, which can be provided by a non-healthcare worker, fluid resuscitation can be provided in the prehospital setting by emergency medical services personnel. This systematic review aims to investigate whether burn patients are receiving accurate fluid resuscitation in the prehospital setting. In addition, it will investigate if existing inaccuracies could impact patient outcomes negatively. This systematic review was completed in accordance with the guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search for eligible studies started by searching relevant databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Google Scholar). The selected studies were screened, and data were extracted and analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria of this review, with a total of 961 patients. All seven studies included in this review reported that the volume of fluids for resuscitation purposes received by burn patients in the prehospital setting was inaccurate. However, most reported that the patient outcomes were not affected. Most of the studies were rated as "good," however, and further high-quality randomized control studies are required before strong recommendations can be made.
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.