ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
Use of preload responsiveness tests in pediatric intensive care units: A nationwide prospective clinical practice analysis.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To avoid unnecessary volume expansions (VE), several preload-responsiveness tests exist in children but most have strict validity conditions, or are time-consuming. Although underuse or misuse of these tests could lead to inappropriate VE and fluid overload, their actual use in pediatric intensive care units (PICU) has never been evaluated. This study aimed to assess the use of preload-responsiveness tests before VE in PICU, identify clinical factors associated with their use, and document misuse when validity conditions, as defined in the literature, were not met. Methods: We conducted a prospective nationwide observational study in 34 French PICU. VE prescriptions to children ≤15 years were collected during a 6-week period. Exclusion criteria were preterm neonates, mechanical circulatory support, and single-ventricle physiology. For each VE, physicians completed a questionnaire at bedside, focusing on preload-responsiveness test use before VE. Relevant data to interpret tests validity were also collected, including spontaneous breathing and ventilation parameters. The use of preload-responsiveness test, their misuse and the characteristics associated with their use were analyzed. Misuse of a test was defined as its application when validity criteria were not met, regardless of the method used to perform the test which was not recorded. Results: A total of 471 VE were analyzed, prescribed to children with a median age of 7.9 months, on catecholamine support in 202/471 (42.9%) cases, and intubated in 292/471 (62.0%) cases. The median volume was 10 ml.kg Conclusions: In this large national prospective study, preload-responsiveness tests were routinely used before VE in PICU, especially in severe patients. However, the selected tests were often either poorly reliable or misused.
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.