ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2025
The Resuscitation, Equilibrium and De-escalation (RED) strategy: a phased, personalized hemodynamic support in children with sepsis.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric Emergency Department Care for Septic Shock in Sub-Saharan Africa: Single-Center Outcomes Before-Vs.-After Implementation of a Telesimulation Program, 2023-2024.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2026Article
- Monitoring and Targeted Regulation of Oxygen Metabolism in Pediatric Sepsis: Current Paradigms and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Hemodynamic monitoring in sepsis and septic shock in pediatric patients: a multicenter survey.Critical care science · 2026Article
- Perioperative fluid therapy in adults and children: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Pediatric fluid resuscitation: an oxymoron?Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemodynamic support in critically ill children with septic shock is a pervasive challenge in the intensive care settings. Cardiovascular involvement in sepsis entails both macro- and microcirculation abnormalities, with the main treatment objectives seeking to increase cardiac output and improve tissue perfusion, respectively. Fluid therapy and vasoactive drugs are cornerstone therapies for circulatory problems in sepsis. Fluid boluses are a common first-line treatment for actual and relative hypovolemia. However, their use has been linked to adverse events due to factors such as their composition, high volumes and rapid infusion rates, and the variable response of individual patients. Furthermore, they often have transient efficacy or lack of response in many patients. Vasoactive drugs are also often used late, which favors repetitive fluid boluses, leading to hypervolemia, tissue edema and worse outcomes. After the resuscitation phase, active fluid removal through diuresis or dialysis is increasingly being used in patients who receive fluid therapy, but it has not yet been standardized, and the safest and most effective strategies in children are still not known. We believe that these interventions for hemodynamic problems in sepsis offer an opportunity to personalize treatment and apply precision medicine strategies. Using a phased approach adapted to each patient's context and clinical condition can potentially improve outcomes. The proposed
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.