SynthesisActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2022
Acetate- versus lactate-buffered crystalloid solutions: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acetate- versus lactate-buffered crystalloid solutions: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of acetate- and lactate-containing intravenous fluid on acid-base status, electrolytes and plasma lactate concentration in dehydrated cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Risk of medication-induced lactic acidosis and hyperlactatemia: a pharmacovigilance study of the United States Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Issuing of isotonic crystalloid solutions to Danish public hospitals in 2021-A retrospective nationwide observational study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is a widespread use of buffered crystalloid solutions in clinical practice. However, guidelines do not distinguish between specific types of buffered solutions and clinical equipoise exists. We aimed to assess the desirable and undesirable effects of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions in hospitalised patients.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials assessing the use of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions for intravenous administration in hospitalised adults and children. The primary outcome was all-cause short-term mortality. We adhered to our published protocol, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the Cochrane Handbook and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
resultsWe included five RCTs enrolling 390 patients. We found no statistically significant difference in short-term mortality (random effects, risk ratio [RR] 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-1.51, p = .14, I
conclusionIn this systematic review, we found very low quantity and quality of evidence on the use of acetate- versus lactate-buffered solutions in hospitalised patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.