ReviewBulletin of emergency and trauma2024
Reviving the Critically Ill: Exploring Effective Fluid Resuscitation Approaches for Diverse Hypovolemic Shock Cases-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Bulletin of emergency and trauma, 2024. 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.
- Best evidence for fluid resuscitation nursing in hypovolemic shock patients in emergency care based on GRADE system.Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The present study was performed to investigate the efficacy of different resuscitation fluids in critically ill patients presenting any type of hypovolemic shock. Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for randomized trials published in English from January 1990 to August 2023. The risk of bias and methodological quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool embedded within the Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). Moreover, this software was used to perform all the statistical analyses in the present study. During these analyses, the random effects model and 95% confidence interval was employed. The overall effect sizes for continuous and dichotomous data were calculated using the Mean Difference (MD) and Risk ratio (RR), respectively. Results: Our initial database search resulted in 4768 articles, of which only 16 were reviewed and analyzed. A subgroup analysis of data from 4 of these studies showed that hydroxyethyl starches (HES), gelatins and albumins had no significant mortality benefit compared to crystalloids (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.17; P=0.58, RR: 0.71; 95% 0.46-1.08; P=0.11 and RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.77-1.43; P=0.77, respectively). Similarly, a subgroup analysis of data from 9 studies showed that hypertonic saline plus dextran (HSD) had no significant mortality benefit over normal saline (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.62-1.13; P=0.24) or Lactated ringer's solution (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.75-1.42; P=0.87). In addition, we found that hypertonic saline had a similar effect on the overall mortality as isotonic crystalloids (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.68-1.25; P=0.60). Also, our analysis shows that modified fluid gelatins had a similar mortality effect as HES ((RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.52-2.02; P=0.95). Conclusion: Colloids, whether individually or in hypertonic crystalloids (HSD), had no mortality benefit over crystalloids in adult patients with hypovolemic shock.
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.