ArticleThe ultrasound journal2026
The ultrasound gap in de-resuscitation trials: A systematic review of physiological assessment deficits.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 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
backgroundFluid overload is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients, yet de-resuscitation trials frequently report negative or inconclusive results. This systematic review examines the relationship between parameter objectivity, ultrasound utilization, and trial outcomes in de-resuscitation research.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials investigating de-resuscitation interventions in critically ill adults. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Statistical analysis included comparison of ultrasound versus non-ultrasound studies and pooled outcome analysis.
results13 studies were identified which randomised 2495 patients. Of the included studies, 4 (30.8%) performed some form of ultrasound assessment. However, only 1 study (7.7%) explicitly used ultrasound to guide de-resuscitation interventions. However, it did not achieve significant fluid separation between the control and interventional arm. No studies achieved positive hard clinical outcomes (mortality reduction or major morbidity reduction) from de-resuscitation interventions. However, several studies successfully achieved their stated primary endpoints: fluid balance separation was achieved in 7 of 13 studies (53.8%), feasibility objectives were met in 3 studies, and improvements in secondary endpoints including ventilator-free days and time to extubation were demonstrated in select studies. These findings suggest that achieving targeted fluid balance changes does not necessarily translate to improved clinical outcomes.
conclusionsCurrent research is characterized by a significant 'ultrasound gap,' where the theoretical benefits of POCUS are not yet integrated into interventional trials. Future research must bridge this gap using standardized, physiology-driven protocols.
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.