Trial reportPediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies2026
REstrictive versus StandarD FlUid Management in Mechanically Ventilated ChildrEn Admitted to PICU: a pilot randomized controlled trial (REDUCE-1).
Trial report in Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFluid overload in PICU patients is associated with poor outcome. In 2021 we aimed to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of restrictive IV fluid vs. usual IV fluids.
designPilot, parallel-arm, open-label RCT (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621001311842).
settingTwo PICUs in Australia and one in Switzerland. PATIENTS: During 2021-2023, we recruited PICU patients aged younger than 18 years who were expected to be invasively ventilated or were already ventilated for greater than 6 hours.
interventionsPatients were randomly allocated to either a restrictive IV fluid strategy or usual care for 48 hours. The restrictive strategy included lower maintenance fluid, smaller fluid boluses and less drug dilution, and earlier diuretics or peritoneal dialysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf 1224 eligible patients, 235 parents were approached and 158 consented (i.e., 67%, one child excluded postrandomization; median [interquartile range, IQR] age was 1.3 yr [IQR 0.3, 7.0]), which meant that the trial did not meet the a priori target recruitment rate. The mean ( sd ) number of patients recruited per month was 6.8 ( sd 3.6). None of 80 patients recruited to the restrictive strategy attained a negative fluid balance greater than10% body weight within 24 hours, compared with 5/77 (6%) in the usual care arm. Median fluid balance at 48 hours postrandomization was 11.1 (IQR -13.7, 40.2) and 8.6 mL/kg (IQR -18.7, 38.8) in the restrictive strategy and usual care, respectively. Median survival free of the PICU for restrictive and usual care was, respectively: 25.0 days (IQR 21.3, 26.0) vs. 24.0 days (IQR 22.1, 26.0).
conclusionsThis 2021-2023 pilot RCT shows that the restrictive vs. standard fluid management in mechanically ventilated children (REDUCE-1) protocol would not be feasible if extended to a full RCT, as currently designed. Future approaches may require stricter guidance regarding the intervention, or use of bundled care.
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.