ArticleAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2026
The ROSE framework for fluid therapy in critically ill pediatric patients.
Article in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe study aimed to assess the applicability of the ROSE conceptual framework (Resuscitation, Optimization, Stabilization, Evacuation) for fluid therapy in critically ill pediatric patients, focusing on its distinct phases, prevention of fluid accumulation, and clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND
methodsA quasi-experimental study was conducted including 122 (retrospective: n = 71; prospective: n = 51) mechanically ventilated and vasoactive-dependent children. A retrospective cohort was compared with a prospective cohort following structured training on ROSE-guided fluid management. Outcomes included fluid accumulation percentage (FA%), duration of mechanical ventilation, pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay, and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Adherence to phase-specific FA% targets was also assessed.
resultsFA% was similar between cohorts (retrospective vs. prospective) on PICU days 1, 3, and 10 (median [IQR] 1.8% [0.2-4.3] vs. 1.9% [0.8-3.2], P = 0.934; 5.5% [1.7-10.3] vs. 6.1% [3.8-10.2], P = 0.565; 8.3% [0.8-24.8] vs. 7.2% [2.6-18.7], P = 0.848). By ROSE phase, FA% was comparable in Resuscitation (3.5% [2.0-6.0] vs. 4.7% [2.4-6.9], P = 0.244), Optimization (3.0% [0.1-6.7] vs. 4.2% [1.0-7.9], P = 0.261), and Evacuation (2.5% [-2.6-5.3] vs. 2.4% [-0.0-7.4], P = 0.256), but higher during Stabilization (2.5% [0.0-6.9] vs. 4.2% [2.0-8.9], P = 0.043). Mechanical ventilation, length of PICU stay, RRT, and fluid elimination were similar. No independent predictors emerged in logistic regression. FA% target adherence rose from 67.9% to 72.4% after ROSE.
conclusionsThe ROSE framework in pediatric fluid management is feasible, provides benchmarking for FA% control, and shows promise for individualizing fluid management. Future validation in ROSE-naive centers is warranted.
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.