ArticleCritical care science2026
Hemodynamic monitoring in sepsis and septic shock in pediatric patients: a multicenter survey.
Article in Critical care science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the current practices of hemodynamic monitoring in sepsis and septic shock in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units.
methodsA multicenter, cross-sectional study using an electronic survey.
resultsAn electronic survey was responded to in three rounds (1 week each), and responses from 77 pediatric intensive care units in 26 states of Brazil were collected. Point-of-care cardiac ultrasound was the method of choice for fluid responsiveness evaluation in septic children in 61% pediatric intensive care units; 78% pediatric intensive care units had enough arterial line monitors available to every bed, but only 57% use invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring for every patient diagnosed with septic shock; 22% use invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring just for refractory shock patients. To guide initiation/titration of inotropes and vasoactive agents, 70% pediatric intensive care units said their decision is based on clinical assessment; 20% use point-of-care cardiac ultrasound to aid vasoactive agent choice; 88% pediatric intensive care units use Lactate trend, and 35% measure central/mixed venous saturation in patients with septic shock.
conclusionDifferences between international guidelines and practice in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units regarding hemodynamic monitoring in pediatric sepsis were identified. These differences may arise for several reasons; recognizing them is crucial to making appropriate changes and adjusting valuable guidelines to make them more feasible for low- and middle-income countries.
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.