ReviewCureus2026
Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Resuscitation Protocols in the Treatment of Septic Shock: A Systematic Review of Hemodynamic Outcomes and Mortality.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a temporal staging-based nomogram for 1-year mortality in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Septic shock is a life-threatening condition requiring rapid hemodynamic stabilization. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)-guided resuscitation on mortality and hemodynamic outcomes in adults with septic shock. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched up to October 2025 for studies comparing POCUS-guided to conventional resuscitation. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) tools. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures, a narrative data synthesis was performed, summarizing findings across mortality, hemodynamic, fluid balance, and organ function domains. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies. Ultrasound-guided resuscitation protocols demonstrated improvements in hemodynamic stability, including higher mean arterial pressure, improved oxygenation indices, and greater lactate clearance compared to standard care. Fluid management outcomes indicated lower total fluid administration and more favorable fluid balance. Several studies reported reductions in organ dysfunction markers, the earlier restoration of perfusion, and the decreased incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Additionally, ultrasound-guided protocols were associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and reduced intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. Mortality outcomes showed variable results, with some evidence suggesting a potential survival benefit. Ultrasound-guided resuscitation improves hemodynamic optimization, fluid balance, and organ recovery, offering a more individualized approach to septic shock management.
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.