ReviewAnnals of intensive care2026
The effectiveness of tissue-perfusion-guided resuscitation in shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Personalized fluid resuscitation may reduce mortality in septic shock as compared with fixed-volume approach - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
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
Resuscitation from shock generally targets macrohemodynamic parameters. However, this approach may not be followed by improved microcirculation and carries a risk of fluid overload. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tissue-perfusion-guided therapy (TP-GT) compared with standard care in adult patients with shock. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL on October 26, 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TP-GT to standard therapy. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251163043). The primary outcomes were 30-day and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), hospital length of stay (HLOS), fluid administration volumes, fluid balances and organ support requirements. The meta-analyses were performed using the random-effect model, and the risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool. Eight RCTs were analyzed, comprising 2,394 patients. TP-GT did not significantly reduce either 30-day mortality (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.83-1.10;
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.