ReviewCureus2026
Liberal Versus Restrictive Fluid Therapy in the Early Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis and septic shock remain life-threatening conditions with high morbidity and mortality. Optimal fluid management during early resuscitation remains controversial, particularly regarding liberal versus restrictive strategies. This systematic review aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with different intravenous (IV) fluid approaches in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. A literature search was conducted in May 2024 using major medical databases. Observational cohort studies and randomized clinical trials assessing mortality and clinically relevant outcomes were included. Five studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising four retrospective cohort analyses and one multicenter randomized clinical trial. Observational data consistently demonstrated that higher cumulative fluid balance was independently associated with increased mortality and adverse outcomes, particularly after the initial resuscitation phase. However, randomized evidence did not demonstrate a significant difference in 90-day mortality between restrictive and liberal fluid strategies during early resuscitation. Overall, current evidence does not conclusively establish the superiority of one fixed fluid approach over another. These findings suggest that fluid management should be individualized and guided by patient physiology and dynamic clinical assessment rather than rigid volume thresholds. Further high-quality randomized studies are needed to clarify the optimal strategy.
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.