Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Impact of protocolized restrictive versus liberal/usual maintenance fluid strategy on fluid overload among mechanically ventilated children: an open-label randomized trial (ReLiSCh-II trial).
Trial report in European journal of 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
Fluid overload (FO) is associated with poor clinical outcomes among critically ill children. The objective of this trial was to assess the impact of a protocolized restrictive maintenance fluid strategy on FO among mechanically ventilated children. This open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a tertiary care hospital in North India over 13 months (November 2023-November 2024). Hemodynamically stable mechanically ventilated children were randomized to protocolized restrictive (n = 64) (40-50% of maintenance fluids with diuretic infusion if FO% > 10%); and liberal/usual (n = 66) (70-80% of maintenance fluid) groups. The primary outcome was the proportion of children with cumulative FO% > 10% through day 5. Secondary outcomes were daily cumulative FO%; inferior vena cava variability index (∆IVC) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at 48 h; safety parameters (requirement of fluid boluses or vasoactive drugs); 28-day ventilator and PICU-free days (VFDs and PFDs), and mortality. Significantly fewer children in the protocolized restrictive group had cumulative FO% > 10% than in the liberal/usual group (22% vs. 47%, p = 0.003). Also, the restrictive group had significantly lower daily cumulative FO% on the first 5 days. ∆IVC and NT-proBNP levels at 48 h, as well as safety parameters, were similar between the two groups. Protocolized restrictive and liberal/usual groups had similar VFDs [20 (8-24) vs. 16 (0-23), p = 0.076], PFDs [16 (3-21) vs. 13 (0-19), p = 0.071], and mortality (14% vs. 24%, p = 0.14).
conclusionA protocolized restrictive maintenance fluid strategy resulted in significantly lower FO among hemodynamically stable, mechanically ventilated children without a measurable impact on short-term clinical outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Fluid overload (FO) is associated with poor clinical outcomes among critically ill mechanically ventilated children. WHAT IS NEW: • Among hemodynamically stable, mechanically ventilated children, a restrictive maintenance fluid strategy may be a useful intervention to limit FO and improve clinical outcomes in LMICs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42081123What 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.