Trial reportZhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics2026
[Application and comparative study of critical care ultrasound and noninvasive cardiac output monitoring in fluid resuscitation of neonatal septic shock: a randomized controlled trial].
Trial report in Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of critical care ultrasound and noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM) in guiding fluid resuscitation in neonatal septic shock by dynamically assessing responsiveness to fluid therapy and comparing treatment outcomes and clinical applicability.
methodsA total of 51 neonates were enrolled. Before initiation of fluid resuscitation, patients were randomly assigned to receive fluid resuscitation guided by critical care ultrasound or by NICOM. Differences in 14-day mortality and other clinical outcomes after the onset of septic shock were compared between the two groups.
resultsNo significant difference was found in 14-day mortality between the critical care ultrasound group and the NICOM group (
conclusionsIn neonates with septic shock, the risks of acute kidney injury and intracranial hemorrhage within 72 hours are lower under NICOM guidance than with critical care ultrasound, whereas fluid resuscitation guided by critical care ultrasound reduces the risk of pulmonary edema. Both critical care ultrasound and NICOM are simple, low-cost, noninvasive tools that can assist in guiding fluid resuscitation in neonatal septic shock.
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.