ArticleJournal of global infectious diseases
Need-based Compared to Guidelines-based Fluid Administration in Dengue Patients with Warning Signs: An Open-label Randomized Study.
Article in Journal of global infectious diseases. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Fluid therapy is fundamental in dengue management. We evaluated an individualized, hemodynamic parameter-guided fluid strategy compared with standard World Health Organization (WHO) guideline-based care in dengue patients with warning signs. Methods: In this open-label randomized controlled trial conducted at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi (December 2019-October 2023), 80 adult dengue patients with warning signs were randomized (1:1) to receive either WHO guideline-based fluid therapy (control) or need-based therapy guided by noninvasive cardiac output monitoring (NICOM) and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) (intervention). The primary outcome was hemodynamic stability assessed by systolic blood pressure (SBP), pulse pressure (PP), and mean arterial pressure over 48 h. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay, progression to severe dengue, and mortality. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable across groups. The intervention arm demonstrated higher mean PP at 8 h (45.2 ± 11.6 mmHg vs. 39.8 ± 8.7 mmHg), 12 h (45 ± 11.3 mmHg vs. 38.9 ± 8.1 mmHg), and 24 h (44.1 ± 9.6 mmHg vs. 39.1 ± 6.6 mmHg) ( Conclusion: Although NICOM/POCUS-guided fluid therapy improved selected hemodynamic parameters, it did not translate into measurable improvements in clinical outcomes compared with WHO guideline-based care. Larger, multicenter studies powered for clinical endpoints in high-risk subgroups are warranted.
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.