Restricted versus Usual/Liberal Maintenance Fluid Strategy in Mechanically Ventilated Children: An Open-Label Randomized Trial (ReLiSCh Trial): Authors' Reply.

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.

1. REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: a pilot randomized controlled trial (REDUCE-1).Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2026
   Trial
2. Impact of protocolized restrictive versus liberal/usual maintenance fluid strategy on fluid overload among mechanically ventilated children: an open-label randomized trial (ReLiSCh-II trial).European journal of pediatrics · 2026
   Trial

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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.