ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Restrictive fluid resuscitation versus liberal fluid resuscitation in patients with septic shock: comparison of outcomes.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Implications of Fluid Resuscitation in Critically Ill Patients.Cureus · 2026Review
- Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Strategy for Initial Resuscitation in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the prognosis of restrictive fluid resuscitation (RFR) versus liberal fluid resuscitation (LFR) in patients with septic shock.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using clinical data from 82 septic shock patients treated in the Intensive Care Unit of Aviation General Hospital from January 2021 to December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: the LFR group (n=41) and the RFR group (n=41), based on the resuscitation strategy used.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant reductions in heart rate (HR) and significant increases in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and central venous pressure (CVP) post-treatment (all P < 0.05). After treatment, the ejection fraction (EF) and cardiac index (CI) were significantly higher in the RFR group compared to the LFR group, while levels of troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were significantly lower in the RFR group (all P < 0.05). After treatment, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores exhibited a marked decrease in both groups, with the RFR group exhibiting greater reductions in both scales compared to the LFR group (both P < 0.05). The incidence of complications was significantly lower in the RFR group than in the LFR group (P < 0.05). Multivariable analysis identified age and fluid resuscitation modality as risk factors for complications in septic shock.
conclusionsIn patients with septic shock, RFR, compared to LFR, appears to better maintain hemodynamic stability and reduce myocardial injury. It also enhances cardiac function, mitigates organ failure, and lowers complication rates, possibly facilitating faster recovery.
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.