Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40103790›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025

Lessons from the similarities and differences in fluid resuscitation between burns and sepsis: a bibliometric analysis.

Dongxu Zhou, LuLu He, Wei Shi, Penglin Ma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dongxu ZhouDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Guiqian International General Hospital, Guiyang, China.
LuLu HeDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Guiqian International General Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Wei ShiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Guiqian International General Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Penglin MaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Guiqian International General Hospital, Guiyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Fluid is an essential component of initial resuscitation in sepsis or burns. Meanwhile, the optimal strategy of titrating fluids for both of the two conditions remains uncertain. In this bibliometric analysis, we compared the similarities and differences in fluid resuscitation between sepsis and burns in recent publications. Methods: Literatures related to fluid resuscitation in either sepsis or burns were searched in the Web of Science database Core Collection from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2022. CiteSpace and VOSviewer was used for bibliometric analysis. Results: A total of 1,549 and 468 publications on fluid resuscitation in sepsis and burns were retrieved from 1992 to 2022. Based on the occurrences, 341 and 86 high-frequency keywords were screened out from sepsis and burns publications, respectively, which were similarly categorized into 5 clusters [i.e. "mechanisms of hypovolemia" (cluster 1), "titration of fluid" (cluster 2), "outcomes or complications" (cluster 3), "pathophysiological alternations" (cluster 4), and "fluid types and others" (cluster 5)]. The high-frequency keywords of the top 20 were more concentrated in cluster 3 and cluster 2, with "mortality" ranked the top in both sepsis and burns literature. Significantly, 3 keywords in cluster 2 ranked in the top 5, including "goal directed resuscitation" (the 3rd), fluid responsiveness (the 4th) and fluid balance (the 5th) in sepsis literature, while the keywords of "microvascular exchange" (cluster 1) and "abdominal compartment syndrome" (ACS, cluster 3) ranked at the second and the fifth place in burns publications. Keyword burst analysis demonstrated that the keyword with the highest burst strength (BS) was "formula" (BS = 5.88, 2008-2014), followed by management (BS = 4.79, 2012-2022), ACS (BS = 4.76, 2006-2010), and fluid creep (BS = 4.74, 2011-2016) in burn publications, but they were dobutamine (BS = 12.31, 1992-2008), cardiac output (BS = 9.79, 1993-2001), catecholamine (BS = 9.54, 1993-2006), and consumption (BS = 7.52, 1992-2006) in sepsis literature. Moreover, the most frequently cited article in either sepsis or burns was categorized into cluster 2, that investigated goal-directed fluid therapy for sepsis and formula improvement for burns resuscitation. Conclusion: It was demonstrated that the research priorities in titrating fluid were mainly concentrated on targeting hemodynamics in sepsis vs. improving formula (which briefly calculates the increased microvascular permeability) in burns, while concerning of "outcomes and complications" in fluid resuscitation similarly after 1992. However, hemodynamics and microvascular permeability have been simultaneously well considered in few previous studies regarding fluid resuscitation in either sepsis or burns.

Indexed as

bibliometric analysisburncomplicationsoutcomesresuscitationsepsis

Identifiers

PMID40103790
PMCPMC11914137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.