ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2025
The SQUEEZE pilot trial: a trial to determine whether septic shock reversal is quicker in pediatric patients randomized to an early goal directed fluid-sparing strategy vs. usual care.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01973907 (Pilot Study for the SQUEEZE Trial), which is not on this 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.
Pilot Study for the SQUEEZE Trial: a Trial to Determine Whether Septic Shock Reversal is Quicker in Pediatric Patients Randomized to an Early Goal Directed Fluid-sparing Strategy vs. Usual Care (SQUEEZE)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Trial
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
Abstract
objectiveThe overall objective of our research is to determine in children with septic shock whether the use of a fluid-sparing strategy results in improved clinical outcomes without an increased risk of adverse events compared to usual care. The specific objective of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the feasibility of a definitive multicenter trial to answer our research question.
designPragmatic, 2-arm, parallel group, open-label, prospective pilot randomized controlled trial including a nested biosample-based translational study.
settingPediatric tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Children aged 29 days to <18 years of age presenting to the emergency department or admitted to an inpatient ward (including the PICU) with suspected or confirmed septic shock and a need for ongoing resuscitation.
interventionsFluid-sparing vs. usual care resuscitation strategy continued until shock reversal. The fluid-sparing intervention comprised instructions to restrict fluid bolus therapy in conjunction with early initiation and/or preferential use of vasoactive medication support as a strategy to spare fluid while targeting the hemodynamic goals specified in the American College of Critical Care Medicine Surviving Sepsis Guidelines. The usual care strategy did not limit the use of fluid bolus therapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsFifty-three were randomized to usual care (n = 27) or fluid-sparing (n = 26). Fifty-one participants were available for primary outcome analysis. Primary feasibility outcomes related to participant enrollment and protocol adherence. Enrollment rate was 1.8 (51/29); 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-2.3 participants/month. Study procedures were implemented in 49/51 (96.1%), 95% CI: 86.5-99.5% participants within 1 h of randomization in a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 8 (5, 15) minutes. The protocol required the use of an exception to consent process and consent for ongoing participation was 48/51 (94.1%), 95% CI: 83.8-98.8%. There were no serious adverse events.
conclusionsWe concluded the large multicenter SQUEEZE trial feasible to conduct.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov [NCT01973907]. Registered October 27, 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01973907 .
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.