ReviewJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
The use of capillary refill time In adult critically ill patients: a narrative review on potentials, pitfalls, and perspectives.
Review in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of Capillary refill time (CRT) use in clinical medicine is interesting, transforming a simple bedside observation into a reliable tool for assessing tissue perfusion in critically ill patients. When Henry Beecher and colleagues first systematized CRT measurement in 1947, they recognized its potential as a rapid method to evaluate circulatory status in trauma casualties, establishing a foundational framework that would influence intensive care practice for decades to come. However, clinicians soon discovered that relying on visual inspection alone introduced troubling variability between observers and even within the same observer's assessments, with expertise and training significantly influencing measurement accuracy. This recognition of CRT's limitations sparked a concerted effort to transform the measurement from a purely subjective exercise into a standardized, objective clinical tool. Researchers systematically refined protocols by establishing consistent pressure application techniques, standardized measurement sites, and defined normal thresholds (approximately 3 s for healthy adults). These methodological advances set the stage for rigorous clinical validation. Subsequent research revealed that CRT correlated powerfully with microvascular blood flow and independently predicted mortality and organ dysfunction in septic patients. Meta-analyses encompassing over 60,000 patients confirmed that abnormal CRT carried substantially elevated mortality risk, particularly when measured using standardized techniques. More recently, the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trials demonstrated that CRT could serve not merely as a prognostic marker but as an actionable resuscitation target. CRT is nowadays considered an adjunct bedside marker to guide fluid and vasopressor resuscitation in adults with sepsis and septic shock, supporting individualized hemodynamic strategies while reducing over-resuscitation risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42867743What 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.